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.

Expungement of Historically Unjust Convictions Act

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today on behalf of the NDP to support Bill C-66 and its quick passage into law.

For me, as a member of the LGBTQ2 community, the government's apology last week was a long awaited historic moment that paved the way for a more just and more inclusive Canada for everyone. I feel like I am walking on a path walked by so many brave and tireless activists throughout the last 50 years. I also want to acknowledge the important work of former New Democrat MPs such as Svend Robinson, Libby Davies, Bill Siksay, and Craig Scott, who paved the way for gay and lesbian Canadians in this House.

I would like to pay particular tribute to the work of my colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, whose tireless efforts resulted in transgender and gender non-binary Canadians finally receiving the same protections and rights as all other Canadians.

Last week's apology from the Prime Minister on behalf of the Government of Canada was a very emotional day for many Canadians, as well as for me. Even as we celebrated the moment and looked forward to the righting of past injustices, the day also inevitably revived some darker memories of what Canadians have suffered.

In 1965, Everett Klippert, from Saskatchewan, became the last Canadian to be in jail because he was gay. He was declared a dangerous sexual offender and was sentenced to life in prison in 1966. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld his conviction until he was released in 1971, two years after then justice minister Pierre Trudeau's bill legalized consensual homosexual acts. Journalist John Ibbitson, who profiled Klippert, recently said in an interview:

He didn't see himself as a pioneer in the gay rights movement. He was just a guy who loved driving trucks and, as it turned out, loved men as well.

Everett was merely the last Canadian to have been imprisoned for who he loved.

There are countless Canadians whose lives have been shattered and altered immeasurably because they were persecuted for who they are. While the apology is welcomed and the right thing to do, there are many for whom it has come too late. It came too late for Everett Klippert.

Every change, every advancement in law, every protection of basic human rights enshrined in law and policy for members of the LGBTQ2 community has been achieved by dragging governments and public institutions kicking and screaming into doing the right thing. Let us hope that those days are over and that today is the day we commit, as Parliament, to end all state-sanctioned discrimination and to begin the long overdue restoration of justice for its victims. Let us hope that, indeed, as the headline for former NDP MP Svend Robinson's opinion piece in The Globe and Mail states, “For the countless Canadians humiliated by anti-gay policies, healing can finally begin”.

Thanks to activists and allies here in Canada, we have seen a gradual shift away from persecution and unjust punishment and a slow but unstoppable recognition of rights for LGBTQ2 people. I want to share a brief timeline.

In 1969, homosexuality ceased to be a crime in Canada, but it still took two more years before Everett Klippert was released from jail.

In 1975, Doug Wilson, a graduate student in the College of Education at the University of Saskatchewan, was refused by the dean of the College of Education to supervise practice teachers in the school system, because he was a gay activist. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission dismissed his case of discrimination.

In December 1977, Quebec included sexual orientation in its human rights code, making it the first province in Canada to pass a gay civil rights law. By 2001, all provinces and territories had taken this step forward.

In 1978, Canada's new immigration act removed homosexuals from the list of inadmissible classes.

In 1979, the Canadian Human Rights Commission recommended in its annual report that sexual orientation be added to the Canadian Human Rights Act. The following year, MP Pat Carney tabled Bill C-242, which would have prohibited discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. It did not pass. NDP MP Svend Robinson introduced similar bills in 1983, 1985, 1986, 1989, and 1991.

In 1991, Robinson tried to get the definition of spouse in the Income Tax Act and the Canada Pension Plan Act to include “or of the same sex”. In 1992, he tried to get the word “opposite sex” definition of spouse removed from Bill C-55, which would have added the definition to survivor benefit provisions in federal pension legislation. All the proposed bills were defeated.

In 1987, Don Cochrane, a professor of education at the University of Saskatchewan, organized the first Breaking the Silence conference to discuss gay and lesbian issues in the education system. The conference celebrated its 30th year this year, but that year, the organizers had to hire security to protect attendees from physical and verbal harassment and abuse from protesters.

In 1988, Svend Robinson became the first member of Parliament to come out. Robinson was first elected to the House of Commons in 1979, and in 2000, the B.C. riding of Burnaby Douglas, as it was called then, elected him for the eighth time.

In 1991, Delwin Vriend, a lab instructor at King's University College in Edmonton, Alberta, was fired from his job because he was gay. The Alberta Human Rights Commission refused to investigate the case, because the Alberta Individual's Rights Protection Act did not cover discrimination based on sexual orientation. Seven years later, after he was fired for being gay, the case went all the way to the Supreme Court, and finally, on April 2, 1998, the high court unanimously ruled that the exclusion of homosexuals from Alberta's Individual's Rights Protection Act was a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Also that year, in my community, Gay & Lesbian Health Services of Saskatoon, now called OUTSaskatoon, opened its doors, thanks to the shear determination and tenacity of Gens Hellquist. GLHS was started to serve the underserved health, social, and emotional needs of gays and lesbians in Saskatchewan.

In August 1992, in Haig and Birch v. Canada, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the failure to include sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act was discriminatory. Federal justice minister Kim Campbell responded to the decision by announcing that the government would take the necessary steps to include sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

In November 1992, a landmark legal challenge was won by Michelle Douglas, who was fired from the military in 1989 for being a lesbian. The Federal Court finally lifted, in 1992, the country's ban on homosexuals in the military, and that year, for the first time, allowed gays and lesbians to serve with pride in the armed forces.

In May 1995, the Supreme Court ruled on the case involving Jim Egan and Jack Nesbit, two gay men who sued Ottawa for the right to claim the spousal pension under the Old Age Security Act. The court ruled against Egan and Nesbit. However, all nine judges agreed that sexual orientation was a protected ground.

In May 1995, an Ontario judge found that the Child and Family Services Act of Ontario infringed section 15 of the charter by not allowing same sex couples to bring joint application for adoption. Ontario became the first province to make it legal for same sex couples to adopt. British Columbia, Alberta, and Nova Scotia followed quickly after.

In 1996, the federal government finally passed Bill C-33 and added sexual orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

In May 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that same sex couples should have the same benefits and obligations as opposite sex common-law couples and equal access to benefits from social programs to which they contribute.

In June of that year, although many laws would have to be revised to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling in May, Parliament voted 216 to 55 in favour of preserving the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

In February 2000, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's Liberals introduced Bill C-23, the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, in response to the Supreme Court's main ruling. The act would give same sex couples who lived together for more than a year the same benefits and obligations as all common-law couples. On April 11, 2000, Parliament passed Bill C-23 with a vote of 174 to 72. The legislation gives same sex couples the same social and tax benefits as all couples.

In total, the bill affected over 68 federal statutes related to a wide range of issues: pension benefits, old age security, income tax deductions, bankruptcy protection, and the Criminal Code. Despite this, the definitions of marriage and spouse were left untouched.

On December 10, 2000, Reverend Brent Hawkes, of the Metropolitan Community Church in Toronto, read the first bans, an old Christian tradition of publishing or giving public notice of people's intent to marry, for two same-sex couples. Hawkes said that if the bans were read on three Sundays before the wedding, he could legally marry the couples. The two same-sex couples were married on January 14, 2001. The following day, the Ontario government reiterated the government's position, saying that the marriages would not be legally recognized.

The year 2000 was also the year that a Saskatoon Mount Royal high school teacher, Patti Rowley, attended a session at a school board convention by gay and lesbian health services. A year later, she started a gay-straight alliance in a high school in Saskatoon, at Mount Royal Collegiate. She has been facilitating a weekly meeting for students and teachers ever since, 22 years later.

In May 2002, then Ontario Supreme Court Justice Robert MacKinnon ruled that a gay student had the right to take his boyfriend to the prom. In July 2002, for the very first time, a Canadian court ruled in favour of recognizing same-sex marriages under the law. The Ontario superior court ruled that prohibiting gay couples from marrying was unconstitutional and violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In February 2003, MP Svend Robinson unveiled a private member's bill that would allow same-sex marriages. The federal government had already changed several laws to give same-sex couples the same benefits and obligations as heterosexual common-law couples. In June of that year, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a lower court ruling to legally allow same-sex marriages. The judgment said “the existing common law definition of marriage violates the Couples' equality rights on the basis of sexual orientation..”.

In June 2003, the Ontario government announced that the province would finally obey the law and register same-sex marriages. Nearly two dozen couples applied for marriage licences in Ontario on the following day.

In August 2003, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien vowed not to let religious objections alter his stand on same-sex marriage. He said that members of Parliament would be allowed to vote freely on the bill when it was introduced into the House of Commons, after his retirement in 2004.

In December 2003, the Ontario court ruled that Ottawa had discriminated against same-sex couples by denying benefits to their partners who had died before 1998. The court ruled that benefits would be retroactive to April 17, 1985, when equality rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into effect.

In December 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the federal government could change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. In February 2005, the federal government finally introduced the same-sex marriage bill in the House of Commons. The bill would give married same-sex partners the same legal protection as other married couples. In May of that year, a Canadian Forces sergeant and a warrant officer were married in the chapel at CFB Greenwood, Nova Scotia, in the military's very first gay wedding.

In June 2005, the controversial bill, Bill C-38, titled “Civil Marriage Act”, passed final reading in the House of Commons, sailing through with a vote of 158 to 133. On July 20, 2005, the bill became law, and Canada became the fourth country in the world, after the Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain, to finally and officially recognize same-sex marriage.

We can see that the road to the apology has been strewn with obstacles, and the struggle and resistance have been real and unrelenting. Each battle has been fought multiple times in multiple jurisdictions.

While governments, parliaments, police services, and other institutions, which were created to protect people, continued to persecute and prosecute LGBTQ Canadians, brave and courageous souls made change, positive change, despite governments. They did that one person, one family, one community at a time, and they saved people's lives. While the apology sadly came too late for some of these brave people, it does represent a much brighter future for those who remain. The apology is the proper first step, and we applaud the government for taking it.

New Democrats have been unwavering in calling for a just apology, and we are pleased that the government has announced that it is including redress measures in the bill. An apology without any redress measures would have been just an apology, not a just apology. There are thousands of people with unjust historic convictions for consensual same-sex sexual activity still on the records, and these convictions continue to be a barrier for people when it comes to travel, volunteering, even to getting a job.

New Democrats have fought to make sure that expungement legislation was tabled at the same time as the apology, and we are committed to working together with all parliamentarians and government to get this legislation passed as soon as possible. By expunging the convictions for historic consensual same-sex activity, the government is ensuring that no unfairly applied discriminatory label or judgment can continue to have negative impacts on people's daily lives.

While Bill C-66 is not perfect, we believe that all of the issues in question are fixable without amending the bill and therefore should not cause delay in the passage of the bill. New Democrats would like to see the immediate implementation of a process for the expungement of criminal records for consensual same-sex sexual activity. Speedy follow-through on a redress measure is necessary to complete and validate the government apology.

Now that Bill C-66 is tabled, we want to also make sure that the government continues to make sure that Canadian Forces service records are revised, that it quickly moves on the tabled legislation to repeal section 159 of the Criminal Code, and, of course, that it finally ends the blood ban for men who have sex with men.

I would like to thank those who went before us, as well as everyone who continues to work toward a more inclusive and equal Canada. There remains, unfortunately, a lot still to do.

I chose to run to be a member of Parliament for Saskatoon West. My goal was to end homelessness. As we heard the parliamentary secretary mention, LGBTQ youth are overrepresented in homelessness in this country. It is estimated that between 25% and 40% of homeless youth identify as LGBTQ2. These young people are more vulnerable or at a higher risk of homelessness because of homophobia and transphobia. LGBTQ youth leave home most often because of violence and abuse. Their home is not safe for them. They often choose to live, literally on the street because they face homophobia and transphobia in our shelter systems and in support services. Despite human rights legislation, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and legalizing same-sex marriage, homophobia and transphobia are still very much a part of daily life in Canada, in our language, in our behaviour, and in the policies and practices of many of our helping institutions.

In the timeline I shared today, I highlighted important Canadian firsts that took place in my home province of Saskatchewan. These are important milestones that have improved the lives of LGBTQ2 Canadians. I would like to end my remarks with one final first.

This fall, the first long-term LGBTQ2 youth home in Canada, Pride Home, was opened in my riding. The youth home is operated by the amazing organization OUTSaskatoon. In 2016, a survey by OUTSaskatoon found that 40% of the local LGBTQ2 youth had dealt with homelessness at some point in their short lives.

We all hope for the day that all LGBTQ2 youth, all youth, have a warm and supportive loving home, but, until then, thank goodness for organizations like OUTSaskatoon.

Opposition Motion—Charter of Rights and Freedoms

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to participate in the debate regarding the Liberal opposition day motion.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver Kingsway.

This opposition day motion is definitely very interesting and most timely, and I thank the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe for bringing it forward. That being said, I must first take some time to remind my hon. colleagues in the Liberal Party of their track record, both historically and in the not so distant past, concerning the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The present often has a way of dimming the past, but I am surprised at how quickly my colleagues in the Liberal Party forget their own belittling of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I find it passing strange that they have decided to go forward with this motion considering that, this week alone, it became clear that their Ontario provincial counterparts completely ignored this ever-important statute.

The flouting of the charter was made clear in the Ontario ombudsman's G20 report. The ombudsman states that the actions taken by the government of Dalton McGuinty were illegal and unconstitutional. The actions by the Liberal Party of Ontario are an excellent example of a government belittling the importance of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and removing rights and freedoms from the Canadian public. Worse yet, this was done behind closed doors and without public knowledge. Peaceful G20 protestors who had educated themselves on their fundamental rights had no way of knowing that the Ontario government had secretly removed these rights. It is painfully clear that the Liberals breached the rights of Canadians in Toronto just this past summer.

If we go back only about five years, we can find yet another example of the Liberal Party disregarding and undermining the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am speaking of the debate concerning marriage law in Canada, specifically, Bill C-38 and the rights of same sex couples to marry.

On February 21, 2005, my colleague from Mississauga South said this in House:

With respect, my view is that Bill C-38 should not be passed and that the notwithstanding clause under section 33 of the charter should be invoked to provide Parliament with the time it needs to make a fully informed decision.

I have two fundamental problems with this statement. First is the fact that the member and his party saw fit to entertain the use of the notwithstanding clause. I take serious issue with the notwithstanding clause. To be honest, I worry that this clause, which gives this House the right to remove the fundamental rights and freedoms from Canadians, exists at all. I find it shocking that the Liberal Party was considering its use in this situation. To quote from its former leader, former prime minister Trudeau, “There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation”.

While I am on the topic of former prime minister Trudeau, let us discuss the actual creation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Trudeau's respect for the rights of Canadians. I would like to draw the attention of the House to Trudeau's breaching of the fundamental rights of Canadians, which he said he so strongly supported. I am speaking of course of his enactment of the War Measures Act during the October crisis of 1970. While historically governments have used this statute during times of crisis, most analysis of Trudeau's use of the War Measures Act says that not only was it unnecessary but it was wrong.

In October 1970, Trudeau specifically targeted communities in Quebec, separatist communities, labour groups and left-leaning communities. He took away their rights of citizenship without any proof that they were involved in the events of October 1970. He presumed guilt without evidence of guilt. Regardless of the fact that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms had not yet been signed, this is a complete breach of the fundamental rights of Canadians, the spirit of that charter.

Furthermore in 1981, the Liberal government cancelled a conference on women's equality. The women present were told that the government would take care of things. The response of these women was immediate and overwhelming. Doris Anderson, the head of the advisory council on the status of women, resigned the post, and a handful of influential Canadian women organized their own conference in Ottawa, calling everyone they knew to attend. On Valentine's Day, 1981, more than 1,000 women descended upon Ottawa to ensure that women were protected in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Through an unprecedented grassroots campaign, these women fundamentally changed Canadian history to ensure stronger equality sections in the newly patriated Canadian Constitution's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 15 and 28.

While I am indeed happy that sections 15 and 28 were included in the charter, it was disappointing that women had to lobby so hard to be included. It would seem that somehow, perhaps because of the court decision on October 18, 1929, women had the misguided notion that they were not only persons but were recognized as persons by the government.

However, that being said, I would like to turn my focus now to the Conservative government and its record.

The member elect from Vaughan has a highly questionable history when it comes to respecting fundamental freedoms. He has openly stated his opposition to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. During his law enforcement career, he flagrantly abused his power when he ordered illegal wiretaps to target minority communities. He demonstrated a complete lack of transparency as a public officer holder.

In 1992, internal police reports indicate that the member elect from Vaughan ordered a wiretap of a civilian member of the city of Toronto's police service board. This is a body that oversees police actions. These actions, for the new member for Vaughan, are highly questionable in a democratic society.

Later during the same individual's tenure as police chief in London, he authorized the now infamous and disastrous Project Guardian. This was essentially an anti-gay witch hunt. Although the originally stated purpose of the operation was to catch pedophiles and expose a child pornography ring, no child pornography ring was ever found. There were convictions for drug possession and prostitution, but no child pornography ring.

Unfortunately during his tenure as police chief in London, the new member for Vaughan had a history of targeting minority communities. The consequences of this behaviour were that it created great distrust of authorities among the people our police services are pledged to protect.

Likewise, during his tenure as police chief in Toronto, Now magazine reported that the same member showed his disdain for democracy by trying to require that the police approve public rallies. Various news articles indicate that the corruption scandals in the police force were shielded from public scrutiny in an amazingly unaccountable fashion by the newly elected member for Vaughan.

Controversy follows this member no matter what position he holds. It goes on and on. His apparent disdain for democracy, transparency, accountability and now the Charter of Rights and Freedoms leaves a chilling legacy.

As we have heard today from many members, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is vital because it protects minority groups. The Conservative government itself has shown its disdain for the charter in many ways, from disregarding its obligations to Canadian citizens like Omar Khadr to cancelling the court challenges program.

The court challenges program was an essential tool for Canadians to access protection under the charter. As we know, Canadians from minority groups often lack the fiscal resources to access the justice system and therefore are unable to seek protection under the charter.

The Conservative government chose to cancel the court challenges program for ideological reasons. The Prime Minister's former chief of staff, Ian Brodie, wrote extensively about the faults of the court challenges program.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women wrote a report in 2008 analyzing the impact of the cancellation of the court challenges program. The committee heard expert testimony that showed how the court challenges program improved women's equality in Canada. It upheld the rights of pregnant women and protected them in rape trials. It was essential in terms of making sure they were not revictimized.

Furthermore when it comes to the most vulnerable in our society, the court challenges program significantly changed the lives of aboriginal women. Women like Sandra Lovelace, Jeannette Corbiere Lavell and Sharon McIvor all used the court challenges program. We sacrifice and demean its authority at our peril.

As parliamentarians, we must respect the rights and freedoms of our citizens. Unfortunately at times the rights and freedoms of marginalized Canadians are forgotten and overlooked. The charter enshrines these rights and ensures that all Canadians are equal under the law. It is for this reason that the charter must be respected. It must be upheld.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

moved:

That the third report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, presented on Tuesday, April 20, 2010, be concurred in.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to move that the third report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, presented on Tuesday, April 20, be concurred in.

This motion is really about updating the citizenship guide. As the House knows, there is a new citizenship guide. Tens of thousands of copies have been printed, but there is no reference to gay rights and gay history in it.

Why is it important that newcomers to this country understand the proud history of Canada? We receive immigrants from around the world and there are countries where gays, lesbians and bisexuals face death, torture, and penalties such as prison terms. For example, in Uganda gays face death threats. Homosexuality is a crime punishable by death in Iran. In Paraguay, in April of this year, a 20-year-old lesbian was abducted and dragged into a car, strangled, suffocated, and subjected to multiple blows which resulted in severe bruising to her body. In Turkey, on April 27, a founding member of the Black Pink Triangle was murdered. She did not survive the gunshot wounds to her back and head. On December 13, 2009, in Honduras, a 27-year-old gay activist, a member of the national resistance front against the discrimination against gays and lesbians, was also murdered.

There is violence and discrimination in many countries. Immigrants come to Canada from many of those countries, so it is very important that the citizenship guide clearly state the rights and responsibilities of new citizens. Under the section regarding the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, under equality rights it should be spelled out clearly that Canadians are protected against discrimination based on race, gender, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or age. It should be mentioned in the section “Towards a Modern Canada” that homosexuality was decriminalized in 1969 and that more recently, civil marriage for same sex couples was legalized nationwide in 2005.

May 17 of every year is the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia. In 1985, as a new school trustee I heard of a murder in Toronto. Kenneth Zeller, a librarian who was very much loved by the elementary school students where he taught, was gay-bashed and murdered in High Park, a park that a lot of gays and lesbians go to in Toronto. He was killed by four high school students. It was tragic. It was unbelievable, in a way, that these were young people who had graduated from our high schools.

During that period, I went around to different high schools and spoke to a lot of gay and lesbian students. I encouraged them to talk about what was happening in their schools. With the help of a student worker, Tim McCaskell, we were able to invite gay and lesbian students to speak to the school board about their experiences. The Toronto Board of Education was the first school board in all of North America to adopt a curriculum that talks about sexual orientation. We also pledged to train all the teachers and adopt policies to protect students.

Many years later, a recent survey has indicated that three-quarters of LGBTQ students and 95% of transgender students feel unsafe at school. A quarter of LGBTQ students and almost half of the transgender students have skipped school because they feel unsafe.

Six out of ten gay and lesbian students reported being verbally harassed about their sexual orientation, and one in four LGB students has been physically harassed about his or her sexual orientation. Two in five transgender students and one in five gay and lesbian students have been physically harassed.

This kind of difficulty and violence happens in our schools, which is why recently there was the launch of the Gay-Straight Alliance. MyGSA.ca is a website that encourages teachers and students to come together to counteract homophobia. This is supported by Egale and is an excellent website that helps promote the curriculum and helps promotes students.

It is important to look at the history of pension rights in Canada. George Hislop was a gays rights pioneer who won the right to same-sex survivor's benefits from the Canada pension plan for gays and lesbians across Canada. In the early 1970s, when it was not easy to be out of the closet anywhere, George was on national television with his partner, Ron Shearer. His partner had contributed to the Canada pension plan for many years, but when he passed away and Mr. Hislop applied for a pension, he was turned down because he was the same sex as Mr. Shearer.

Same-sex couples were excluded under the Canada pension plan until August 2000 when the laws were finally amended to include them. Those amendments, however, continued to deny pensions to those whose partners had died prior to January 1, 1998, which was the case for Mr. Hislop's same-sex common law partner. Because of his same-sex class action lawsuit based on the charter right of equality, he was able to leave a lasting legacy of tolerance to our entire country.

A person like George Hislop should be celebrated in our citizenship guide, because he was a leader in the lesbian and gay community in fighting discrimination and demanding equal respect.

Luckily in July 2005, the federal government agreed to start paying pensions pending the appeal. While Mr. Hislop did receive his first cheque in August, he passed away soon after.

I talked earlier about equal marriage, and about the long struggle here on Parliament Hill and in the community. Brent Hawkes at the Metropolitan Community Church has been a leader in Canada in pushing for people to learn to love and support each other and not be judgmental. It is part of the universal fellowship of the Metropolitan Community Church. The MCC published banns for same-sex couples, Kevin Bourassa and Joe Varnell, and Elaine and Anne Vautour, in accordance with the age-old legal tradition.

The Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto married the couples in a double wedding ceremony on January 14, 2001. It was an extremely joyous occasion. I was fortunate to be there. I want to share what Reverend Brent Hawkes said. He said:

Love is the fundamental basis of all Christian teaching.

Because of their Christian heritage, their current faith and for many, their current loving relationships, access to marriage has always been desired by many in our congregation. In fact, blessing same sex unions was one of the first types of services provided by UFMCC [Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches] when it was founded over 30 years ago.

I believe that most Canadians either support our right to marry...or they believe that the state has no business in telling us that we may not do so....and that the majority of Canadians cherish freedom of religion as a fundamental right in our society. Most Canadians would agree that one group in society should not impose its religious beliefs on another group with a different view.

He continues that love and marriage is something that should be celebrated and not prohibited. I witnessed the marriage of Michael and Michael. They are from Halifax. They have been together for 20 years. In Michael Leshner's affidavit, he said:

It should not be necessary for me to justify my application for a marriage licence and requiring me to do so would be discriminatory, humiliating and upsetting. Being denied a marriage licence suggests that Mike and I do not love each other, and that our hopes, our dreams, our life together do not exist. Mike and I, while supposedly equal citizens of this great country, are deemed non-persons, because we are gay.

Subsequently, in 2005-06, there was a series of votes in the House of Commons, and gay marriage was finally approved. I want to repeat a short part of a speech by the member for Toronto—Danforth, the leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada. When the House debated the Civil Marriage Act, Bill C-38, he said:

Mr. Speaker, there are junctures in a country's path when it is an honour to be a member of Parliament because one is able to help make a fundamental choice, a choice that celebrates more of our rich diversity and extends that fundamental Canadian value of equality. Originally, the goal of extending marriage—civil marriage—rights came directly from the grassroots, part of the long struggle of gays and lesbians for a society in which their right to a just, equitable relationship was recognized, meaning the celebration of their union, but also, let us hope, our celebration of their union.

It is important that all of this history and the rights of the gay and lesbian community be recognized, celebrated, and documented in our citizenship guide. For us not to do so, especially for our new immigrants, is unfair and unjust. There is no excuse. The citizenship guide, as it is, is fairly substantial. It is hefty. There is all sorts of good information in the citizenship guide. There is absolutely no reason not to include this section.

Many people have done a great deal of work on equality. Not only should we include all of this in the citizenship guide, but I believe that the federal government has a role to play in helping to educate our young people and new immigrants to make sure that they understand that homophobia is not tolerated, that there is a hate crime in this country, and that gay bashing will be punished.

All those elements we celebrate should be included. We must make sure, whether people are young or old, new to Canada, or live in urban centres or rural Canada, that all citizens of Canada understand this priority.

I want to take the time to read something that passed through the House of Commons three times in three years in three Parliaments under three prime ministers. The House of Commons voted to affirm the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to affirm the inclusion of same-sex couples in civil marriage.

The first vote was in September 2003, following the historic Court of Appeal for Ontario ruling. The second vote was in 2005 on Bill C-38, which is the equal marriage bill. The final vote was 158 to 133.

The third vote was on December 7, 2006, and that vote was divisive, because even though Bill C-38 had passed, the Conservatives at that time wanted to bring forward that issue again. Thankfully, the vote passed again for the third time in three years.

Immediately after its passage on December 7, 2006, Canadians for Equal Marriage had this to say:

We are heartened that Canadian values of inclusion, equality and respect for difference have shown themselves to be stronger than ever.

A clear pattern has been established in the three votes that have been held in Parliament since the courts first ruled that excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage violates the charter. This is a pattern of growing acceptance of equal marriage, a pattern that reflects Canada's growing consensus on this issue.

Most MPs, like most Canadians, have come to understand that equal marriage doesn't harm anyone; it only makes life better for some. They have come to understand that a generous and inclusive definition of marriage actually strengthens the institution. They have come to understand that the only reason to exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage is discomfort, resistance to change and moral judgment. And they have learned that voting in favour of equality and inclusion feels really, really good.

We also want to salute all the Canadians who may have been uncomfortable with including same-sex couples in marriage, but who have come to accept and perhaps even embrace equal marriage. It's you who have truly demonstrated the wonder of Canada—that people with such diverse backgrounds and beliefs get along and live together in peace and harmony. That ability makes Canada the envy of the world.

That is why many of them want to come to Canada.

To continue with this statement from the Campaign for Equal Families:

Our common challenge now is to look at each other with eyes of understanding and compassion. To put aside our differences and focus on what we have in common. We all want to build a better Canada and a better world. And now that we have put this issue behind us, we can get on with that task.

In the not-too-distant future, we will look back and wonder how it was that this was even an issue. We will be proud that Canada chose to continue its long tradition of inclusion and respect for diversity, and refused to turn back the clock on equality. And hopefully, one day, the idea that someone would hide their sexual orientation or their gender identity will make no sense at all.

We look forward to that day.

We look forward to the day when all new immigrants understand that they do not have to hide their sexual orientation or their gender identity. That day, when every new immigrant becomes a citizen, he or she will be proud of Canada's long tradition of inclusion and respect for diversity. Now is not the time to turn back the clock on equality, which is why we must include gay rights and gay history in our citizenship guide.

Industry Canada

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition today from constituents in my area, mainly in the Churchbridge and Langenburg area. The petitioners would like to draw the attention of the House of Commons to the fact that Industry Canada has provided funding for the production of a booklet called “The Little Black Book” that contains pornographically explicit material and that this booklet indoctrinates and solicits children to same sex relationships and may contain incomplete and inaccurate information. The booklet is being used in a provincial education system as a handout to students.

The petitioners therefore call on Parliament to rescind all funding to this project and such related or similar projects and remove all reference to endorsement of such materials by Industry Canada or other departments, review the impact of the Bill C-38 marriage law and its complicit tie to such promotion of same sex material, and take all necessary steps to ensure accountability of tax dollar expenditures on this project in every department.

Marriage

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member appreciate the fact that this is a free vote in our party? Would she call on all parties to recognize that this is a free vote?

We all know that Bill C-38 was not a free vote. It was a whipped vote. We brought this motion forward because we wanted to give all members, including the opposition members, an opportunity to vote their conscience.

Does the member appreciate that this motion is a free vote and does she believe that if this motion is passed it will restore the traditional definition of marriage?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is problematic when we go through so much debate and then somehow there is still confusion about what we are talking about and what we are voting on. The motion is clear. The motion is not to reinstate the definition of marriage. The motion is for Parliament to call upon the government to introduce legislation that would reintroduce the definition of marriage. The vote tomorrow is not the same as the vote on Bill C-38, which was to change the definition of marriage. It is a procedural motion.

I am afraid that when we have this kind of intervention, people who are watching tonight or who will read this will be asking whether the vote going on in Parliament today is the same as the vote that was held on Bill C-38 which was a bill that actually did something. The answer is no, that this is a procedural motion and it is not necessary. In fact, the Conservative members have said consistently that there is no constitutional problem with the Supreme Court and we should just bring in the bill.

Maybe the member would like to suggest that the government bring in a bill.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to quote a section of Bill C-38. Clause 3.1, which is an amendment that was added to the legislation over the course of the hearings of the legislative committee, states:

For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.

Does the member for Yukon have any reason to believe that section is not effective, that these guarantees have not been met and that there has been any problem whatsoever since the bill was passed with guaranteeing the freedoms as outlined in this clause in Bill C-38?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member took a personal, strong stand in the debate on Bill C-38 and resigned from his position in the cabinet because of his feelings about that legislation. Does he have any sense that due diligence was not given to the legislation in the 38th Parliament?

We have heard a criticism today that somehow the bill was rammed through, that it was not given the proper attention. Does he have any sense about the diligence with which Parliament dealt with that legislation?

[Joe Comuzzi, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, needless to say, I have the greatest of respect for you and your position, although I got you confused the other day, for which I apologize.

I have been here since around 5:30 p.m. or 6:00 p.m. I have listened as best I could to all the folks who made interventions tonight, well thought out presentations. I was very impressed with the sincerity of all the presentations. I compliment every member of the House who made a presentation here tonight because of their interest, their input and particularly the sincerity with which they talked. I think they all deserve a great round of thanks.

The constituents of Thunder Bay—Superior North, as well as myself, support the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.

Bill C-38 became an act respecting certain aspects of the legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes. It was passed in June 2005. I happened to not be in favour of that legislation and I voted against it. However, the fact of the matter is the majority of the people in the House voted for that legislation and it became the law of the land.

There are many times and many occasions that we sit in the House and wish it would go some place else, but it will not. The final determination and the role of all members of Parliament is we have to accept those occasions where our wishes are not looked at with the degree of sincerity that we think they should be, but we live with the majority ruling of the House. Today we are faced with the law of the land.

First, the motion in front of us, and I have asked this question several times, asks the permission of the House to bring in a particular piece of legislation. It is the first time, in all the years I have sat here, I have seen a government ask for permission to bring in legislation, although I stand corrected on this.

I always thought the government, if it were truly intent on getting something properly passed, would bring in the legislation, it would be debated, it would go to committee, it would come to second reading, it would go back, it would come back for third reading, like all legislation should. I say this and I stand perhaps corrected, but I have never seen this happen before, and I wonder as to the wisdom of this type of motion.

Second, as we debated the motion, I found out that it did not allow for any amendments. I cannot understand why, when people in the House come together and debate as we have tonight, we do not have the opportunity to make some amendments to get a reconciliation of our thoughts so we can come down to good legislation.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke frequently about people of faith, but I want to ask him a question about people of faith who do support the change that was made to the definition of marriage with Bill C-38. There are religious institutions in Canada that do support marrying gay and lesbian couples, whose definition of marriage includes gay and lesbian couples.

Would he take away their freedom of religion to express that inclusion of gay and lesbian couples in marriage? They have through strong religiously held principles made that decision to marry gay and lesbian couples, to allow them, to allow us to enter into marriage.

Would he undo their ability to do that? Would he strip away their freedom of religion in order to re-establish a so-called traditional definition of marriage that does not include gay and lesbian couples?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much value this opportunity to speak on this very important subject. Tomorrow the House will vote on whether to reconsider the issue of same sex marriage. The motion before the House affirms the traditional definition of marriage while at the same time defending the charter rights of those wishing to live in same sex relationships.

The tragedy is that had the former Liberal government properly consulted with Canadians on this issue, we would not have to have this debate tonight. The Liberal performance on this highly contentious issue has been appalling. Rather than listening carefully to Canadians and then allowing a completely free vote by members of this House, the Liberals instead rammed Bill C-38 through in order to avoid any further scrutiny.

What is even more appalling is that the prime minister of the day, the member for LaSalle—Émard, forced his cabinet and parliamentary secretaries to vote against their consciences and against the wishes of their constituents. Shame. Sadly, it appears that nothing has changed. There is a new Liberal leadership, but still the same bullying tactics.

In fact, the new leader from Saint-Laurent—Cartierville voted in favour of the traditional definition of marriage just seven years ago. In 2005, he voted against the definition of marriage. Yesterday, he implied that all Liberals would have to vote against the traditional definition of marriage. Today, he says they will not.

This is embarrassing, not only to the Liberal leader and his party but also to Canadians as a whole. Canadians demand transparency. They demand clarity. They demand freedom of conscience and they demand a democratic process, things they were not getting from the previous government.

Today, under a new Conservative government, we are delivering on a promise which we made to Canadians during the last federal election. We promised a truly free vote on the definition of marriage and today we are delivering on that promise. It is indeed sad that a number of the opposition parties have refused to allow the same thing for their members of Parliament.

To any Canadian who respects the democratic process, this vote is absolutely necessary and perhaps the crux of this is respect. That is why we are having this debate tonight. The previous government lacked respect for the strongly held convictions of millions of Canadians. There was a lack of respect for beliefs held by people of faith all across Canada. There was no need to change the definition of marriage in order for gays and lesbians to establish meaningful, long term relationships that are recognized in law.

However, the previous government decided to move ahead anyway without consulting Canadians in a meaningful way. In the process it has divided the country when it was totally unnecessary to do so. By redefining the term “marriage” we tell people of faith from all religions that their opinions, their freedom of conscience and speech, and their strong convictions are not important in the public debate.

This debate tonight is about respect. We are not asking to re-open this debate because it polarizes Canadians. We are asking to re-open this debate because the issue was not settled by Canadians, it was dictated to Canadians.

This is not an issue of protecting charter rights. This motion is very clear. It recognizes the traditional definition of marriage while at the same time respecting the rights of all Canadians to enter into legally protected same sex relationships if they so choose.

Unlike the previous vote on June 29, 2005, our government has proclaimed that this vote on marriage will be a free vote to all government members, including cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries, but the freedom that prevails in the Conservative Party has not unfortunately been afforded to everyone in this House. That is the tragedy of tonight's debate. Something as important as defining one of the cornerstones of our society, namely the definition of marriage, will not receive the consideration that it is entitled to.

Bill C-38, which originally changed the definition of marriage to include same sex relationships, was conceived in haste, promoted by stealth, and passed undemocratically by the previous government under a whipped vote.

I was not present in this House when this issue was last debated. I have read some of the speeches and statements made on both sides of the issue. I believe that all of the reasons against changing the definition of marriage were well articulated by many of our members while Bill C-38 was debated and I do not think I need to recapitulate all of those reasons here tonight, but I do want to say a little about my own community of Abbotsford, British Columbia.

Abbotsford is a multi-ethnic and multi-faith community, incredibly diverse and incredibly tolerant. This is a community that has temples and churches. It has communities of all faiths. I carried out a survey in my community. In the survey that I conducted, an overwhelming majority of my constituents believed that this was a very important issue, and they let me know in no uncertain terms that they believed we should return to the traditional definition of marriage.

During the last election, I made my position and my support for the traditional definition of marriage very clear to the people of Abbotsford. That is why I am completely at peace when voting in support of this motion which is to reconsider the issue of redefining marriage, to return that definition to the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.

Of course, the previous government did not want to listen to people who did not share its thoughts on marriage. It showed a lack of respect and a lack of respect for people of faith. That is why we are debating this matter tonight because, for most Canadians, especially those who embrace religious convictions, this issue is not closed.

Same sex couples may enter into whatever manner of relationship, arrangement or situation that they may desire, but they should not call it marriage because that is a concept that has been clearly understood for millennia. Same sex couples, whether as a couple or as individuals, possess the same democratic and economic rights as any other Canadians in our society. In fact, given the high level of tolerance and acceptance in our society, gays and lesbians can hardly be considered disadvantaged or lacking any of the rights and freedoms that all Canadians take for granted.

I took the liberty of reviewing the same sex reference case, which was a Supreme Court of Canada decision on this very issue. My friend across the way suggested that it is now established law that we must redefine marriage as including same sex relationships. I studied that decision very carefully and the member across the floor will know that the Supreme Court was asked four questions. It answered three of those, one of them being whether it would be against the charter to actually redefine marriage as including same sex relationships. However, the third question the Supreme Court of Canada deliberately chose not to answer, and that was, if we retain the traditional definition of marriage, is that a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? The Supreme Court could have ruled on that. It had the opportunity. In fact, it chose not to, clearly referring the matter back to this House of Commons, the duly elected representatives of this country.

It is on that basis that I can fully support this motion. I believe in the traditional definition of marriage, that we can retain that without violating the charter, provided that we have legislation in place which also protects the rights of same sex couples to enter into civil unions.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what the member had to say. I would argue that his words in 2005 were exactly correct. There was no need to rush Bill C-38. We did need to look further into it. That is what this motion seeks to do.

If the member believes those words from 2005, why will he not support this motion and help those of us who wish to reinstate the traditional definition of marriage to do so?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, until June 2003 there were a number of cases before the Supreme Court and other courts and provincial courts which sought to get equality for same sex couples to be married. Each and every decision was that there was discrimination in terms of the equality provision of the charter, but that section 1 was an override. That section 1 override said that it was demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

It was not until July 2002 and the case of Halpern v. Canada. The Ontario Supreme Court heard this case on the existing definition of marriage. Only a year earlier a same sex case had come before a B.C. court, which was before this Ontario court case. One said it was demonstrably justified and that the discrimination was justified.

I remember being at Canadian Forces Greenwood in Nova Scotia on a parliamentary exchange and I was in my bed reading the decision in the Halpern case and it was very difficult to read. Effectively, the case discredited heterosexual marriage by citing divorce rates and growth in common law relationships. It also dismissed the importance of the ability to procreate, citing the availability of reproductive technology, such as artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, surrogacy and adoption, just to name a few.

By the flavour of the court, the case and the arguments being made, all of a sudden we were challenging what happened in the B.C. court decision by looking at marriage and the distinctive characteristics of marriage and trying to discredit them to the point where it might tip the balance in terms of the section 1 analysis in the charter, in other words the section 1 analysis which allows one to discriminate.

On June 10, 2003 the court concluded that the existing legal framework was discriminatory since it failed to provide fair public recognition of gay and lesbian unions. The decision also stated that the infringement could not be demonstrably justified under section 1 of the charter, citing that the exclusion of same sex couples from the right to marry served no identifiable, pressing or legitimate government objective.

In my view this view summarily dismisses the relevance of marriage to any aspect of social well-being of Canadians, which in fact is one of the reasons that we are here. It is to protect the health and well-being of all Canadians, especially our children, so I would absolutely disagree with the decision in Halpern which was the tipping point. Members will know that subsequent to that Ontario Court of Appeal decision, eight other provinces went along with copycat decisions basically making it discriminatory.

We know how we got here. As a consequence of that, Bill C-38 came to the House, but it was not an action of a government; it was a reaction of a government to judicial proceedings and to judicial decisions. There is no question that we were faced with a situation that the definition of marriage was deemed to be discriminatory and the section 1 analysis did not save it in that particular case.

The motion before the House is:

That this House call on the government to introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions and while respecting existing same-sex marriages.

The Ontario Court of Appeal decision that denied marriage to same sex persons was in violation of the equality provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This decision was also reached in another eight provinces. In the reference to the Supreme Court, the important aspect here is that the court concurred with the conclusions of the lower courts. It absolutely concurred. In fact, the Supreme Court decided and it made a decision in the reasons for judgment that it would not overturn the decision in those courts.

All of a sudden it was the law in Canada that the government could not discriminate by excluding same sex persons from being married. It is the law today.

To introduce a new bill, which this motion proposes, to reinstate the traditional definition would not in fact be charter-proof. It would not be charter-proof and it would be challenged by the courts not only federally, but in the nine provinces where it is law today. This is the opinion of over 150 eminent constitutional authorities.

It is estimated that these cases would take seven to 10 years to work their way through the courts. This thing would be with us forever and this is just not acceptable.

Not only would such a bill be unconstitutional, but the motion deals with civil unions which are a provincial jurisdiction. In addition, it would create two classes of same sex couples, those who could marry and those who could not. Their children could not marry but the children's parents or their guardians would have been married. It is a very awkward situation.

As a legislator, not as an individual who wants to just take care of my own values and my own issues, but as a parliamentarian, I have to vote against the motion. The reason I have to vote against it is clear. The motion is improper. It is asking Parliament to undertake a legislative process which is unconstitutional. It also asks us to deal with something that is beyond federal jurisdiction. Technically it is wrong.

We say a prayer when we start here in the morning that we are here to make good laws and wise decisions. We cannot. As a matter of fact, if the motion were simply as was promised during the election campaign by the Conservative Party to reopen the debate on the definition of marriage, I could vote for it. But this motion was a little clever by a half and it spoiled it for a lot of people. The motion now before us really is disingenuous and it really is only to satisfy an election promise and would surely fail in its present form. The government knew that. That is my view.

Today during the debate on the motion, I asked the government House leader if he would just simply forget this motion and table a piece of legislation to reinstate the traditional definition of marriage. The question was not answered and yet the Conservative Party form the government. It does not need the approval of this place to table a piece of legislation. I say table it if it can.

Constitutional experts have said that a piece of legislation cannot be tabled that would summarily change the definition back because it would be constitutionally invalid. It is not charter-proof. The only way, and I said this when I gave my speech on February 21, 2005, is to invoke the notwithstanding clause. In my speech on February 21, 2005 on Bill C-38 I concluded, and I want to read it into the record:

Finally, I believe that the redefinition constitutes a radical societal change. It may not have immediate societal consequences, but over time it would have enormous implications. This is not just about the infringement of rights of gays and lesbians. It is also about the diminishing the relevance of the most important social institution in our society, and that is marriage.

In my opinion, the potential for material and adverse 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.

With respect, my view is that Bill C-38 should not be passed and that the notwithstanding clause under section 33 of the charter should be invoked to provide Parliament with the time it needs to make a fully informed decision.

Let me assure the House that my opinion is still the same today.

Unfortunately, the motion before this place is not whether or not I support the traditional definition of marriage; it is whether or not I think the government can table a piece of legislation to summarily change it. Constitutional lawyers have said it cannot. The only way it can be is to invoke the notwithstanding clause and the Prime Minister has said he is not prepared to do that. We are now at an impasse.

I will write to the Prime Minister and I will ask him to either invoke the notwithstanding clause or introduce another bill in this place to get the Government of Canada out of the business of marriage and leave it to the churches.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, like all members in the House, I listened very intently to the hon. member. In fact, all of us have to recognize the sincere concerns that we have as members of Parliament representing people across this country and, more important, representing everyone and not just particular interest groups.

I voted against Bill C-38 and I spoke in this House on trying to retain the historic and Christian definition of marriage that so many of my constituents have. Even at that time, we were recognizing that marriage in Canada had a very complex definition. Not only is our federal government involved with marriage according to our Constitution but, very significantly, each province issues marriage licences that enable people to become married. In fact, when we dealt with that issue and voted on it, we found that many provinces, Ontario being the lead, were offering marriage licences and people of the same sex were being united in matrimony.

How would the member answer a question in terms of what federal rights we have as federal politicians to deny the province of Ontario the right to issue marriage licences?

Second, it is deeply troubling to me that a government which has a leader whose responsibility is to lead Parliament, to bring bills to this House and define legislation that he wants debated in this House, has not had the leadership ability to lay a bill before the House and instead went to his House leader--

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleagues for the opportunity to speak on a matter that is very important to me and Canadians.

Our government is proceeding with a free vote on the definition of marriage, which is exactly what did not occur during the last debate on this matter. I wish I could be making this speech under better circumstances, but since that is not possible, I am going to present before the House, my constituents and this nation the unfortunate truth of the matter. The truth is the following.

This Parliament is being compromised in its democratic principles. The House of Commons of the 39th Parliament in truth would vote in favour of restoring the definition of marriage to its traditional form if an actual free vote was held. Among those who believe in restoring marriage are members from all parties. I know this because I have spent much time over the last nine months speaking with members from all parties.

I have done my research in an exhaustive manner and the unfortunate tragedy is that the true score may not be the final tally when the votes are counted tomorrow. This is because in our day, at a time of supposed intellectual freedom and open minds on a foundational issue of such importance and consequence, members of Parliament are at this very moment being pressured, either by outright and open oppression by their leaders or through hidden but powerful political pressure by these very same people, to vote against their conscience and against the will of their constituents.

I believe there are enough members in the House, composed of both men and women, who are personally and intellectually convicted that marriage should be restored to its traditional form. I believe these members represent the will of Canadians across our country, but many in this majority that I believe exists have been suppressed into silence.

If this vote fails, it will be for this reason and the traditional family will be further damaged in a time when it has been constantly under assault. So, it is with disappointment that I say that unless leaders relent or members are inspired to stand against this intellectual suppression tomorrow, the voted will of the Canadian people may in fact be thwarted again and democracy will suffer another blow as seems to have often happened on pro-family issues.

At the eleventh hour, I would like to take the opportunity to make a two-fold plea. First, I plead with opposition party leaders. Each of them hold democratic ideals. They believe in freedom of thought, honesty and integrity, which are essential ingredients for a healthy Parliament. These things they have championed in Quebec and Canada during every election campaign. Yet, at this crucial moment in Canadian history, they are either openly or discreetly attempting to seal closed the intellects and tape shut the mouths of those who oppose them.

They are seeking to impose their own will upon Canada in a manner that betrays the very founding principles of our democracy and society. They are also violating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The first and most fundamental freedom listed in the Canadian charter states that each person has the freedom of conscience and religion and, second, the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media communications. How can it be that in our Parliament, the heart of our nation, members are being forced to express and vote the very opposite of that which they believe and think?

This is not a partisan speech. I do not believe that this should be a partisan issue. I do not care at all for winning political points on this matter. How can any of us play politics with the family? On my part, I refuse. I have worked with members from all parties in the House and encouraged them on this important matter. I have found friends and allies in all parties who have fought with me in defence of traditional marriage and the family.

Of these many allies, I am fortunate that I am allowed the freedom to speak my mind on this issue and to vote as my intellect bids. I feel that we must all be allowed to do the same and so it is with trust, hope and goodness that I now make my plea. I would ask leaders of the opposition to please encourage their members to vote in accord with the way they really think.

I make another plea. I plea to every member in the House. I know that throughout the year politics and partisanship unfortunately take up much time in the House and issues sometimes suffer because of it. Today we should put that aside.

I can speak for no one but myself, though I am sure many others share my thoughts. I would like to suggest that when members cast their votes tomorrow, they should cast it as free persons, for the good of Canada, and based on their own intellect and how their conscience instructs them.

At this point, I would also like members to consider freedom of culture. As an aboriginal Canadian, I would like to point out that most within my community are in fact the most traditional, family-oriented people in the country. It is a requirement within my culture to consult one's elders on important matters such as this. My elders have clearly told me that small, isolated aboriginal communities must continue to teach their children that marriage is between a man and a woman. One elder told me, “What message would we be giving our communities if we did not teach our children the importance of traditional marriage?”

Another gave me a powerful example. She said, “Consider the colour orange. You could define it as being a combination of both red and yellow. If someone decided that orange should now also be defined as a combination of red and red or a combination of yellow and yellow, what would orange mean to you? The word would be without meaning and you would have to create an illusion in your mind to reconcile this deception”.

I can tell members that people from all backgrounds are starting to realize the brave new world that Bill C-38 brought us into. It is an undefined path with unknown consequences. One thing that has been demonstrated by Bill C-38 is that Parliament, through its elected members, has the ability to change the legal definition of marriage. It has already done so just last year.

In the future, Parliament may also choose to alter this definition, based on the will of the people or the courts. Who can predict what future rulings the courts might impose on marriage?

The Canadian Parliament has a majority of MPs who may in fact vote in favour of restoring the definition of marriage, though some will not be allowed to vote the way they want to. Tomorrow, I will be able to vote freely, with honesty and integrity. I hope that my colleagues in this House will be allowed to join me. If it is permitted and if democracy works tomorrow, then this House will move that marriage be restored in its traditional form and Canadians will prevail.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, that is part of the dilemma that all of us faced when we looked at this resolution. The first part of the resolution states, “That this House call on the government to introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage”. If the government had stopped at that point, that might have been palatable to all members, but it goes on to state, “without affecting civil unions”. I read the right hon. Prime Minister's platform and he specifically did not make reference to civil unions. The motion goes on to state “respecting existing same-sex marriages”. This would create three classes of citizens: those prior to the legislation; those governed by Bill C-38; and should the motion pass, those who would be part of a third group of Canadians. All of it would be unconstitutional because different classes of Canadians would be created.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the government's motion to restore the traditional definition of marriage. I have some very serious concerns about the wording of this motion which I find very vague and misleading.

I would like to turn the attention of the House back to a vote we held in the last Parliament on Bill C-38, An Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes While this bill contained some proposals that I agreed with, it also sought to do something that I fundamentally disagree with, namely to change the traditional definition of marriage. When that bill came before the House, I voted against it. I voted against it for a fundamental reason, namely, I believe in the traditional definition of marriage, marriage as defined between a man and a woman. For me, this is a matter of my own personal faith and conscience.

However, as both a parliamentarian and a lawyer, I believe in the equality of citizenship of all Canadians. This includes providing same gender relationships with the same legal protection and the same benefits under the law as all other Canadians enjoy.

I believe in the separation of church and state. My difficulty with C-38 was that it sought to change the definition of marriage. I fundamentally believe that churches and other religious institutions alone should define marriage. Government, on the other hand, should simply register these relationships or unions. These were some of the reasons that I voted against the legislation in 2004.

Today the Conservative motion we are debating is one which I find to be seriously flawed. As parliamentarians we have to make responsible decisions for our constituents and with our constituents. We have to know what we are voting for and with this motion we do not know. This motion does not define what the government classifies as a civil union for example. It fails to define what rights and protections would be guaranteed in these relationships. If on the one hand the House is voting on a motion to produce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage, how can the proposed law at the same time respect existing same sex marriages?

This is a clear and irresponsible contradiction which I cannot and I will not support. We are all equal before the law. The proposed legislation that the motion calls for would create three classes of citizens in Canada and this is simply unacceptable.

If the government were serious about this issue and not simply playing politics, it would have prepared legislation so that we could study the implications of voting on this motion. It has not done so. This too is unacceptable.

Sadly we have come to expect this type of underhanded approach from the government. It is a government that is dividing the country, pitting one region of the country against another, pitting one group of Canadians against the other. It is a government that is far more interested in crafting policy based on right-wing ideology than on what is best for Canadians.

I find it sad that the government is playing politics with an issue that has been so divisive for Canadians. I believe that the role of the federal government is to unite Canadians from all over the country, not to pit one group of Canadians against the other.

The motion that the government has presented to the House of Commons is divisive. It is vague. It is misleading. Frankly, it is unconstitutional and legally unenforceable.

Let me be clear in conclusion. I support the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, but I will not be a pawn in the hands of the government as it tries to drive a wedge between Canadians. I will not vote for something I have already voted against.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to participate in the debate tonight.

I think it is fair to say that pretty well everyone here is suffering from debate fatigue. I have been in Parliament since 1997 and this issue has been bubbling up in one form or another since then. It appeared in resolutions. It appeared on pension rights. I was part of the justice committee that travelled across the country and got our report usurped by the decision made by the Court of Appeal. Then, of course, it culminated in Bill C-38.

This issue does keep coming up over and over again. The votes have been, to varying degrees, whipped votes. That in some respects has skewed the results, leaving those who see marriage as I do, as being between a man and a woman, somewhat dissatisfied. Had the votes not been whipped, I would suggest that possibly the results might have been different.

The other reason that this debate comes up over and over again is a resentment on the part of a lot of citizens, including my constituents, in that they do not like the courts taking unilateral decisions and in effect usurping parliamentary authority on a rights-based analysis in what is ultimately a very complex societal issue.

I respectfully submit that this is not the way in which to get societal consensus. Since over the last 10 years we have been trying to get societal consensus on this--and possibly there is some movement--I respectfully suggest that whipping votes and having courts inappropriately usurp parliamentary authority is not the way to get societal consensus.

I note that other countries, those that have adopted same sex marriage, in fact have moved legislatively. They have not had to respond to particular court decisions, so it has been the initiative of the legislatures rather than the courts. I suggest that a fear of what the people might say or think is always a bad thing in a democracy.

I want to turn to the motion itself. I would describe this motion as a bit of a false hope motion. The Prime Minister made an election promise, or more accurately a half-promise, during the last election and got himself into a bit of a jam. He was repeatedly asked whether he would use the notwithstanding clause. An honest response would have been, of course, to say that he would, because in order to effect any real change, to effect an override on Bill C-38, we are going to have to use the notwithstanding clause. If there is anyone who has a legal opinion to the contrary, I would be interested in hearing it.

Unless there is in the motion itself a commitment on the part of the Prime Minister to use the notwithstanding clause, I would respectfully suggest that this is a debate that really is largely a rhetorical debate, with much sound and fury signifying not too much at all.

Simultaneously we have heard from a lot of people who are wrapping themselves in the charter. Generally they are the people who oppose the motion. My only comment to those who oppose the motion while wrapping themselves in the charter is that part of the charter is the notwithstanding clause. The framers of the Constitution, the framers of the charter, felt that there was a necessary override at times. That is the only way and the only basis on which those framers would allow a charter to come forward.

Essentially we have a debate between those who conveniently ignore the notwithstanding clause and a Prime Minister who will not say whether he will use it.

I would like to frame my views somewhat differently, though. As we know, a lot of politicians get criticized for being less than forthright, for constantly bobbing and weaving and taking somewhat different positions, and I can see why that is, because to take a clear and unequivocal position on an issue such as this is simply to be held up to public ridicule, in part, and no one likes to be ridiculed publicly.

So at the risk of painting a target on my head, here is what I believe. I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, period. I do not think I can make it any shorter or clearer than that. I may have to be taken out to re-education camp, but nevertheless I still believe that.

I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and it is the central institution in society by which society perpetuates itself. That is the core reason for marriage. It is the central bridging institution. It bridges between the genders and it bridges back into previous generations and it bridges into future generations. I take those as self-evident truths. That is the core reason for marriage.

And that is why society effectively builds up a legal, a cultural and even a religious net around the couple: because it has to. The laws and norms that are around the institution of marriage between a man and a woman exist to protect particularly the women and the children, who are products of that marriage or who enter into marriage, during their vulnerabilities and their dependency.

Effectively, the laws and the cultural norms, and even the religious norms, mean that a man cannot walk away from a marriage relationship without having the law and the culture impose this web of obligations and responsibilities on him. Similarly, we could say the same thing for a woman walking away from a marriage.

The core purpose of marriage is societal perpetuation, and if marriage did not exist, we would have to invent it. Every society that survives in fact creates a strong web of laws and obligations, and societies survive only if they do so. If marriage is just about a couple, then we simply would not need this net of cultural and legal obligations and norms.

I want to turn now to the exceptions, because I know that of course some marriages do not have children. They are childless. That still does not detract from the core purpose of marriage. It is simply an exception to the norm.

And of course common law relationships produce children, but I respectfully submit that common law relationships are statistically not as stable as marriage, for all its flaws, and they are more difficult particularly for women and produce inferior outcomes for children. There are notable exceptions, and I do not want my email to be busted overnight with people who say, “But my kid is perfectly fine and we had a great relationship in a common law relationship”. As a statistical truth, this is true.

As well, single people produce children, but as we know, parenting is a tough slog when two people are raising a child. When it is one person raising a child, it is tougher again by some exponential factor. Society reacts by stepping into the breach, albeit, how shall we say it, inadequately, and in some manner replacing either the missing mother or father.

So I go back to my central point that marriage, for all its faults and all its failures, is the best institution for crossing the gender barrier and for the continuity of society.

The proponents of same sex marriage have been successful, however, in limiting the debate to simply a rights analysis only. Their argument starts with a conclusion. The conclusion is that marriage is simply a relationship between two people.

Therefore, it follows, as we back up through the argument, that if it is merely that--and I do not believe that, as I hope I have demonstrated--if it is merely a relationship between two people, then it matters not what gender the people are. And therefore, we arrive at the conclusion that it is discriminatory to have a situation in which marriage is only between men and women and that it can be between any gender if we follow the logic of that analysis. I respectfully suggest that this is in fact dubious logic and it guts the core reason for marriage.

There will be consequences. We cannot renovate the institution with nothing happening or expecting that nothing will happen. I expect the first consequence will be that heterosexuals will accelerate their detachment from marriage. There is a trend that is already there. We see more and more couples living together. We see more and more couples living together and then getting married. In both cases, there is less stability in those relationships.

The second, and more troubling, consequence is that we will need to redefine parenthood and limit children's rights. We already see the same sex couples, who are inherently sterile, asking courts to declare that their child, conceived by whatever means, is in fact their child, regardless of the biological rights. As Margaret Somerville has said, “society to become complicit in intentionally depriving children of their rights with respect to their biological family”.

I will be supporting this deeply flawed motion in spite of its political implications. I wish the Prime Minister had been more honest with Canadians and spelled out the legal and constitutional implications. This is a mischievous, duplicitous and dishonest motion, but regretfully I will have to support because it is in fact a proxy for the marriage debate.

I hope I made myself clear as to what I believe and why I believe it.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite already knows, I have been very clear in stating my position on this particular motion. I will not be supporting the motion. I think Bill C-38 as it stands will stand before the charter. I think it is constitutional. It has been approved and I think it will be reaffirmed by the Parliament of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, having listened to much of the debate that has occurred so far this evening, I must say that there are a couple of points that I fail to understand. I fail to understand the point of view of individuals who feel that recognizing same gender civil marriage somehow threatens the traditional definition of religious marriage. I do not mix those two up and I do not understand the comparison.

At the same time, there has been much said from the official opposition that somehow we should not have this debate, that somehow, simply because there is a piece of legislation passed, Parliament has no right nor obligation nor responsibility ever to look at that issue again.

I would be of the mind frame that would rather we did not open this issue. I am not ashamed to say that. I quite believe in what I say. At the same time, for my colleagues who share my point of view, I would urge them to debate this issue on the merits of the issue, not on trying to characterize one party as being ideologically to one side or the other, or one party being right and one party being wrong but to actually debate the merits of the issue.

Can we debate the issue? Of course we can. We have the responsibility as parliamentarians to have a free, open and respectful debate in this House. I believe, quite frankly, we could do that if we strive to do that.

For me, the issue of same sex civil marriage is settled. It has been settled by the courts and it has been settled by the Parliament of Canada. It was publicly debated for two and a half years and in 2003 our justice committee from the Parliament of Canada held nationwide hearings. We debated this issue to the limit of tolerance in the House of Commons.

Previous to this debate, our provincial courts, the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, the Supreme Court of New Brunswick, the Supreme Court of Ontario, the Supreme Court of Quebec and Yukon Territory had already recognized same gender civil marriage. Eight provinces and one territory in this country recognized same gender civil marriage before Bill C-38 was passed by the Parliament of Canada.

The Parliament of Canada had a responsibility either to recognize same gender civil marriage or challenge the lower court hearings at the Supreme Court. It chose not to challenge. The provinces did not challenge it. There was no reason to challenge it.

I think, with respect, that Canadians have already made their minds up on this debate. I believe Canadians are a generous and open society. I believe that at the beginning of this debate there was a lot of division. There was a lot of ignorance. There was a lot of intolerance. The good thing about this debate is that it has absolutely shelved a lot of that. It has allowed people of common spirit and good will to find a cooperative approach to this issue, to recognize the value in one another's points of view, and quite frankly, to move on in a positive way.

If only Conservative voters had been polled, I think we would have found a discrepancy. Perhaps the majority of Conservative voters were actually opposed to same gender civil marriage. However, if those same voters were polled today, as has been done, in Atlantic Canada in particular but in the country as a whole, it is now fifty-fifty. There are 47% of voters for and 47% of voters against same gender civil marriage. I would conclude that has changed. Through this bill, the debate and discussion around same gender civil marriage has become more open, more inclusive and more tolerant.

If we look in particular at Atlantic Canadians, 69% of them are opposed to re-opening this debate. That is from an Environics poll. That is not a poll that someone made up. That is a legitimate, open and important poll that has to be put on the record in this debate.

Allow me to be clear on a couple of issues. I keep hearing about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What does the Charter of Rights and Freedoms say? Subparagraph 2(a) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives extremely clear and unambiguous protection for religious freedom. People who say differently, I would concur are using scare tactics. Churches, mosques, synagogues and temples in Canada will decide their own futures on religious marriage, as they should and as they have up to this point.

It is extremely important to mention that we have already had same gender religious marriage prior to passing Bill C-38 in Canada. There has been same gender religious marriage for years in the United Church of Canada and in some of the Anglican Churches in Canada. Parliament had an obligation to extend the same right that was protected by the right of religion to civil unions or civil marriages, and it did that as it had that responsibility.

The previous bill was timely and warranted. Not only that but it was a responsibility that Parliament had. I was surprised at the time. I have seen a lot of Liberal legislation come through the House and for the first time we had a bill that had real clarity of language, lacked ambiguity, and opened the door to an extension of tolerance enjoyed by all Canadians to a certain group in society when we recognized same gender marriage. Most importantly, at the same time there was clear protection for religious marriage because of the protection of the charter. We have moved forward in an important way.

Before closing I would like to say that I cannot agree that this motion would restore the traditional definition of marriage because, quite frankly, the so-called traditional definition of marriage is not, has not, and will not be threatened.

I believe that if this motion were to pass, it would immediately lead to a court challenge that would put this issue on the table for years. What are we going to do with the 12,000 gay and lesbian couples who have already married in this country? How can we take a right away from them or provide a right to others that we cannot extend to gay and lesbian couples? It is very problematic.

I know firsthand the entrenched views of many people who would deny the right of civil marriage to same gender couples. Yet, I know there is a lot of tolerance in this country. Often I hear there is less tolerance in rural Canada and I frankly disagree with that.

I think rural Canada is even more tolerant than the rest of the country. We have a long and proud history of being tolerant of our neighbours and of other points of view. I will say in this place that we should extend that tolerance to all people in Canada.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the perspective the member for Davenport has on this. I know he was here for the speech of the Conservative member who spoke immediately before him, the member for Kitchener—Conestoga. A theme of that member's speech was “the blind dash toward setting this legislation in the last Parliament”. He talked about the undue haste that he thought the 38th Parliament had undertaken in its work on Bill C-38, the Civil Marriage Act.

As an openly gay man, I can say that the blind dash toward equality for gay and lesbian people in Canada does not seem like a very fast march to me. The 32 years that gay and lesbian people in Canada have worked to secure equal marriage rights does not seem like a very fast pace for those of us who have been fighting to see the full equality of our citizenship recognized and to see that we have equal access to key institutions of Canadian society like marriage.

I wonder if the member might comment on this supposed blind dash toward getting this legislation through the last Parliament. I hasten to remind him that 98 Conservative members spoke in the debate in the last Parliament. I think the Conservative Party had just over 100 members in the last Parliament.

We had weeks of hearings before the special legislative committee that was working on this. We often sat well into the night on that committee hearing from witnesses, a majority of whom raised concerns about the legislation.

Could the member comment on this supposed blind dash toward this legislation?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to address this motion. I believe the issue of traditional marriage is of crucial importance to all Canadians.

Since my election to office in January, there has been no other topic that has generated such a constant flow of mail, email, telephone calls and face to face dialogue as the issue of marriage.

I am relieved to say that finally the voices of Kitchener—Conestoga will be heard. The people in my riding have spoken clearly. I am proud to finally be the voice of Kitchener—Conestoga. In the spirit of being that voice, let me take some time to speak from my heart. Let me share some of my deeply personal beliefs and convictions about the merits of reopening the debate on traditional marriage.

Some people would want us to believe that traditional marriage is something about which Canadians have forgotten. That is simply not true. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Canadians care deeply about this issue. It may be an issue that members of Parliament would like to put behind them. It may be an issue about which special lobby groups would like to see us forget. However, let me clear, it is an issue Canadians are not going to abandon.

I have been serving as an MP for less than a year. In that time over 1,000 constituents have taken the time to write me a letter, or pick up the phone, or stop me on the street, and they say quite clearly, “I care about traditional marriage”.

I have been asked about this issue by young married couples who are raising children. These families are deeply concerned about their children and future grandchildren if the traditional family is abandoned.

I have personally met with young people. These are teenagers and young adults. They are contemplating marriage and have taken the time to come to me and tell me that they are concerned about the future of our country. They come to my office and thank me for not turning my back on them. They thank me for giving them a voice. These young people want to see the definition of marriage protected as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Young people of Canada know this: strong communities are built on strong families and a strong Canada is built on strong families.

It was not very long ago that a resolution came to the House on the issue of marriage. And it was in this very House less than eight years ago in June of 1999 that we agreed that marriage would be defined as “one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”. The vast majority of members in this House voted in favour of that resolution. In fact, I can look across the floor into the eyes of my colleagues who stood up and said that marriage should be defined as one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

However, as members will know, in June 2005 there was a hasty adoption of Bill C-38. It is my deeply held personal belief that many members decided to turn their back on that previous commitment. They turned their back on their constituents and they turned their back on the Canadian people. Bill C-38 was rushed into law, but the bill did not have the benefit of complete debate.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights had conducted hearings across Canada, meeting with hundreds of Canadians from coast to coast. The committee spent untold hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars, 465 witnesses appeared, 250 briefs were presented and thousands of letters were received.

Unfortunately, all that work and effort was ignored. All that input was never compiled into a report and presented to Parliament. In other words, the committee hearings were nothing more than a sham and they deceived Canadians by allowing them to think that they were part of an important national debate. If democracy is to be well served on a matter of such fundamental importance as marriage, then we need to know the views of Canadian citizens.

The issue before us today and the vote tomorrow is not a vote on traditional marriage, but it is a vote to allow debate on traditional marriage. While I personally continue to favour a traditional definition of marriage, I think it is a travesty that we could turn our back on having an open debate on this subject. Democracy deserves no less.

My request, and the request of millions of Canadians, is for Parliament to reopen this debate so the report can be tabled and Canadians can all have real input on this important matter. Thousands of taxpayer dollars were spent conducting these hearings. Therefore, in the interest of wise stewardship alone, we owe it to all Canadians to have this work completed. However, there is much more at stake than simply getting good value for money in having this report tabled.

Another key factor to consider is the fact that many members were not given their free vote on this important issue. If my current information is accurate, it appears that the so-called New Democratic Party will not allow democracy within their own ranks.

Over and over, Canadians have been given a hollow promise that their individual rights will not be trampled and that no one will be forced to act against their own conscience or religious beliefs.

Does it not seem ironic that in the very place where those hollow assurances originate, in the House of Commons of Canada, that this core individual right is denied to individual members of Parliament? How can we reassure Canadians that their values, their individual rights and their religious convictions will not similarly be trampled?

It is true that Bill C-38 was enacted into law, but does it follow that this law is never open to further scrutiny? I know every member of the House understands that the practice of periodic review of legislation is simply good government practice. I believe any governing body has an obligation to review and revise its policies from time to time. Do we not owe it to our constituents to ensure that the law of the land is achieving its intended goal? Do we not have an obligation to allow parliamentarians to vote in a way that truly reflects the spirit of leadership we bring to this position? If Bill C-38 introduced worthy legislation, why would we not allow a full and open debate? Let the law be examined on its merits, good or bad.

There are simply too many factors that were overlooked and ignored in the previous government's haste to rush this legislation. There are too many questions that still face the House. Yes, we can choose to ignore those questions again, but just because we choose to turn our back on them does not make them go away.

There are questions that remain unanswered. Have other jurisdictions experienced any negative consequences from implementing similar legislation? If we turn our back on this debate, we will never know. Did we consider the potential consequences for all segments of society in our haste to change thousands of years of traditional marriage? Did we overlook the needs of the most vulnerable among us, young children? Unless we have a full debate, we will never know. We have an obligation to examine the facts before we make decisions.

The issue of human rights has been raised as the reason that we cannot deny same sex couples the right to marry. If we are to speak of rights in the House, we need to include the rights of children.

The UN Declaration on Human Rights specifically states that the rights of children must take priority over the rights of adults because they are more vulnerable and require the support of the state.

Multiple studies have taken a good hard look at the impact of traditional marriage on childhood development. Yet, unless we vote to reopen debate on this issue, the House will never have an opportunity to consider what those studies say.

The debate over traditional marriage should be a debate about rights, I agree. However, in the blind dash to put a patchwork of rights together, have we ignored the rights of children? Again, let me make a direct appeal to my fellow parliamentarians. For the sake of future generations, for the sake of our country, let us remember the children.

I do not want to stand in the House and have young people come to me in 10 or 15 years and say, “You turned your back on us”. I cannot allow that to happen.

The responsibility of any elected official is to represent the views of their constituents. The people of Kitchener—Conestoga have spoken very clearly. They have spoken repeatedly. They want to open the debate on traditional marriage.

As I walk through the streets of Breslau, New Hamburg, Wellesley or St. Jacobs, constituents come to me and thank me for finally giving them a voice. As I sit in my constituency office in Kitchener, people will call me or drop in just to express their support of traditional marriage. As their elected representative I am asking: let us have an open and honest debate.

Canadians expect an open and honest debate, followed by a truly democratic vote, not a whipped vote by an autocratic party leader determined to satisfy special interests. The House of Commons, the highest pinnacle of democracy, deserves nothing less.

We need a debate to review the impact, not just on people who wish to marry but one that also reviews the impact of that decision on the most vulnerable among us, our children.

Again, my request is simple and clear. For the sake of democracy, for the sake of our children, for the sake of future generations and for the sake of the future of our country, let us have a full, open and honest debate.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the member that the motions they are putting forward in this House will not promote openness or unity, either in the country or in the House. This motion is very divisive.

The motion that is put before the House today reads:

That this House call on the government to introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions and while respecting existing same-sex marriages.

What is this? The government does not agree with Bill C-38 which became the Civil Marriage Act. The Conservative Party did not agree with it when it was put before the House. There were a few very courageous people on the Conservative side who voted with the Liberal government at that time to pass the bill. The Conservatives did not agree with it. They know, as I do, that it is very difficult to change. Rather than have the courage to do what the government should do and propose a bill, the Conservatives have proposed a motion.

I will make the government and the Prime Minister very happy because I will vote against this motion, which is exactly how the Conservatives want us to vote. They do not want this motion to go through. The Conservatives know that if this motion went through, they would have to go to the next step. They would have to put a bill before the House and they have already said that they will not.

The primary responsibility of a government is to put before the House a bill that is constitutionally valid. The Conservatives know that they could never get the Department of Justice to recommend that a bill which reinstates the traditional definition of marriage without using the notwithstanding clause is constitutionally valid. They would have to fire everyone and hire again. They are not above that, but I do not think they will. They will not do that.

I do not believe that reopening the debate would change the outcome. The process would be harmful to many. The House has spoken. This issue has been debated at length and Canadians have made up their minds on this matter.

The Conservative motion is disrespectful of the democratic process and undermines the charter, the very principles upon which our political system operates.

Legislation to amend civil marriage has been before Parliament since 2003. It has been considered by parliamentarians since 2002. Draft legislation was referred to the Supreme Court of Canada, I believe in 2003. The matter was debated at length in the House of Commons and was sent to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, where we heard countless hours of testimony from expert witnesses on all sides of the issue.

Parliamentarians had the opportunity to speak at length on this issue. We have had a full, open and honest debate.

In June 2005 I voted in favour of the current law at third reading. My decision to support Bill C-38 was not made lightly. This has been a very difficult issue for many Canadians, involving deeply held personal and religious beliefs and convictions.

I made my decision after hearing from many of my constituents on both sides of this issue and participating in hours of debate here in the House of Commons.

One of my earliest concerns, echoed by many of my constituents, was that the same sex marriage bill would compel religious officials to perform marriage ceremonies that are contrary to their beliefs. Our current legislation affirms the charter guarantee of religious freedom and has been guided by the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court has declared unanimously that 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.

Religious leaders who preside over civil and religious marriage ceremonies must and will be guided by their own beliefs. If they do not wish to perform marriages for same sex couples, it is their right to refuse to do so, plain and simple.

The charter is one of rights, but it is also one of freedoms. Ours is a secular society and the separation of church and state is the strongest protection of our freedom of religion. The government does not dictate the terms of our beliefs, nor does it attempt to control religion.

The current same sex legislation is about civil rights, not religious marriage. The same sex civil marriage law is accepted as law in eight jurisdictions across Canada.

My job as a parliamentarian and legislator is to protect the rights of each and every Canadian and defend the charter in its entirety. The charter was enshrined to ensure that the rights of minorities, regardless of their numbers, were never subjected to the will of the majority. We must not shirk that responsibility.

The Prime Minister, on the other hand, has demonstrated that equality rights are not a top priority for his government. When the Conservatives eliminated the court challenges program, they stripped minority groups of the ability to challenge legislation that infringed on their rights.

The court challenges program provided financial assistance to individuals and groups who were pursuing legal action to advance language and equality rights under the Constitution. The right to same sex marriage is one of the issues that have been brought before the Supreme Court thanks to this valuable program. People objecting or seeking their rights under religious beliefs had the same access to that program when it was funded.

The Conservatives have sent a message that financial resources are a factor in determining the extension of charter rights. This is unacceptable.

In December 2004 the Supreme Court ruled that same sex couples have the same right to civil marriage as do opposite sex couples. The current government wishes to reinstate the traditional definition of marriage, but it would serve no purpose to legislate a definition of marriage that is not consistent with the charter, because it would be overturned by the courts.

The Prime Minister has stated that he would not use the notwithstanding clause to bar gay marriage, but constitutional experts tell us that new law can only be passed if the clause is invoked.

As I see it, this is a disingenuous motion aimed at keeping an election promise to Conservative supporters. I have said to my constituents, and I will repeat it here, that the only time I would support in such a matter the use of the notwithstanding clause would be to defend the rights of the independence of the church, should they ever be attacked. The Prime Minister is again pandering to his base. We saw it this fall with the $2 billion cuts to our valued social programs. Even worse, he is using a deeply sensitive and divisive issue to do so.

The bottom line is that the definition of marriage has already been changed. It is now a matter of overriding a right that is guaranteed by the charter, a right that is already in place. The issue is not whether rights are to be granted; it is whether they should be taken away. Our rights cannot be subject to political whim.

More than 12,000 gay couples have wed in Canada since same sex marriage was legalized last year. Furthermore, Bill C-38 made universal across Canada a law that is already accepted as law in eight jurisdictions, including my home province of Nova Scotia. In September 2004 the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia ruled that same sex civil marriage was legal in our province.

The charter is a living document and must evolve and reflect the changing nature of society. As we are well aware, it was not until 1929 that women were finally declared persons under the law in Canada. This historic decision established a principle of understanding that justice requires judges to consider an evolving social context when interpreting the law. Lord Sankey of the Privy Council said it best:

The exclusion of women from all public offices is a relic of days more barbarous than ours, but it must be remembered that the necessity of the times often forced on man customs which in later years were not necessary.

Canada is a progressive and inclusive country that values the rights of individuals. Our laws must reflect equality as we understand it today and not as we understood it decades or centuries ago. Canadians have spoken on this issue and democracy has prevailed. The Conservative government must stop playing politics with our rights and move forward, not backward, on an issue that has been thoroughly examined, debated and passed through this House and the Senate.

In summary, what we are debating here today is not changing the current definition. That is done by a bill, an act of Parliament, that is presented either by the government or by a member of Parliament as a private member's bill. It is debated in this House of Commons. It goes to committee. Experts can come and testify. Individuals with concerns can come and testify. It gets more debate at third reading. It gets three readings in the Senate. We have gone through that process.

This is a motion intended to divide Canadians, to divide members of the House and not change the status of laws in Canada.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the minister is mistaken. A number of votes have been free on this side of the House, on the opposition side. Tomorrow evening's vote will also be free. The vote on Bill C-38 was a free vote. Members could vote as they saw fit. The ministers should vote in solidarity and such has been the case for all the bills proposed by the government during this session, including the highly important motion recognizing Quebeckers as a nation within Canada. Some said this had important ramifications, but did not say what they were. But they did say that it was very important.

Was this a free vote? No. A minister even had to step down over this issue. It is completely in line with parliamentary tradition for the former government to have called for cabinet solidarity when it introduced Bill C-38. That is what this government has been doing since the beginning of the parliamentary session.

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, like a number of my colleagues in this House, I would like to take part in the debate on the following motion:

—That this House call on the government to introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions and while respecting existing same-sex marriages.

Many Canadians must be wondering why it is important to consult this House again on this issue. After all, less than two years ago, this issue was debated and voted on in this House, in the form of Bill C-38, the Civil Marriage Act. At that time, Parliament passed a law defining marriage as follows:

Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.

This definition of marriage includes same-sex unions. As I had not yet been elected at that point, I can express my opinion on this issue today.

First, I would like to say a few words about the motion itself. It is important to point out that the motion will not change the definition of marriage. It seeks simply to ask members whether they want to reopen the debate in order to develop a bill to restore the traditional definition of marriage.

The members of this House have two choices when they vote this week on this motion. For those who support the traditional definition of marriage—the union between a man and a woman, which excludes all same-sex couples—the choice is to vote for the motion. For those who believe that the definition of marriage goes beyond the traditional definition and includes same-sex couples, the choice is to respect the existing law on civil marriage and vote against this motion.

I want to respect the current law, which is in line with my personal values and protects the fundamental rights of Canadians.

I am convinced that we do not have to amend this law, because it still respects the traditional definition of marriage.

I, myself, have been married for more than 25 years. I am the mother of three children and I believe that this act in no way undermines the importance of my union and the solidity of my family. I sincerely believe that the Civil Marriage Act continues to enable all heterosexual couples to marry, as they have done for a long time. The current legislation enables same sex couples to benefit from the same right.

The real question that needs to be asked is this: does the government have the moral authority to decide whether two people, a man and a woman, or same sex partners, can be legally united? In my opinion, the answer is clear and simple: two people who want to live together within a civil marriage, regardless of their sexual orientation, must be able to do so without the interference of the State.

I am one of those who firmly believe in the separation of church and state. In my view, one person’s religion must not become another person’s law.

While the debate deals with a motion that was tabled by the government, I want to emphasize that the government has taken no position on this question. Unlike the previous government, all members on this side of the House, including ministers, are free to vote according to their conscience. In that regard, I must severely criticize the Liberal government for having presented that legislation to the House without allowing a truly free vote on such a sensitive issue.

I am proud to belong to a government that believes that matters of personal conviction should be decided by a truly free vote. As a minister in this government, I feel privileged to be able to express my views on this issue and to vote freely on the motion tabled by this same government.

In closing, I congratulate the government for allowing members of this House to express their points of view of in a spirit of mutual respect.

I take this opportunity to inform the House that I do not wish to reopen the debate, that I intend to respect the current legislation on civil marriage and, consequently, I will be voting against this motion.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Burnaby—Douglas both for his comments and for all the work that he has done for so many years on this issue in standing up and speaking of equality rights for gays and lesbians. The speech he made was very moving, as were the beautiful vows that he talked about between such loving couples that he has the pleasure to know.

I myself have had the pleasure of knowing many gay and lesbian couples over the years. I have seen at first hand their love for one another and their pride in being able to share that love in a way that is equal in society, in being able to take part in marriage vows and to feel like they belong in society as equals with the rest of us.

I want to ask my hon. colleague one question. It has been over a year now since the passing of Bill C-38. Has he has seen anything that would give him any indication, as some people have said, that the state of marriage in Canada is in jeopardy, that there is a crisis in marriage? I want to ask him if he has seen anything to give him pause there.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, religious belief is a wonderful thing. It is the conviction that there is life after death. I think that in the Catholic faith, in the Christian faith, there is an ideal of charity that is certainly hidden behind a more official stance.

When we held hearings in 2002, and more recently on Bill C-38, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops came out against same-sex marriage. It did so very respectfully, explaining that, because Catholicism is a revealed religion that has holy scriptures, it had to interpret those scriptures fairly literally, and it did not recognize same-sex marriage. I repeat, that is not our concern. As parliamentarians, we respect freedom of religion.

But Canada has no state religion. The world view offered by the Catholic faith or any other form of religion can certainly influence individuals' personal convictions, but it can never serve as a basis for public policy.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Hochelaga is always very articulate, strong and clear in his expressions in the House, particularly on this issue. He has been a leader in the House, in Quebec and in Canada on the issues of gay and lesbian rights. I like to think of him as one of the heroes of the transformation in the situation of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people in Canada both in this place and in the community.

I know he has been part of the debates. He went through the long history in a very careful way. I think he made a very strong case for the actions of the current government in the past being very much in opposition to the full participation of gay and lesbian people in our society. The record is pathetic, to put it mildly. I know he was part of many of those discussions.

One of the arguments being made now is that somehow in the last Parliament the effort spent on dealing with Bill C-38 was somehow deficient, that we did not give it due diligence. I know in his remarks he touched on the time and effort that went into Bill C-38. He was a part of cross-country hearings that heard from 467 witnesses. However, could he expand on the criticism that due diligence was not done when this issue was before the last Parliament?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again the fact that someone is opposed to the right to marry of gays and lesbians is not a sign of homophobia. However, when a government or an official opposition votes nine times against the rights of a sexual minority, then I think there are grounds for speaking of homophobia.

I have made a list of the nine times when the Conservatives, and before them the Alliance members, voted against the rights of gays and lesbians. If at some point the Bloc Québécois decided to vote nine times against the rights of native peoples, I believe that it would be said that the Bloc Québécois is against native peoples. If at some point we were to vote nine times against women's rights, I think it would be said that the Bloc Québécois was against women's rights.

Having said that, I repeat that the Supreme Court was clear on the fact that churches and religious denominations are not required to officiate or to celebrate marriages if this runs counter to their dogma or the teachings of their church. That was included in Bill C-38. The freedom of religion provision in the Charter does not require it.

The Supreme Court was clear. Bill C-38 is clear. In any event, what we are discussing today and what we discussed in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 is civil marriage celebrated in courthouses before notaries, prothonotaries or laypersons hired by the government. That is what we are talking about.

Yes, I respect the right of a person committed to a specific religion not to celebrate religious marriages.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

And I do not say that it is a matter of homophobia not to support that kind of marriage. However, the system has been tested nine times.

I am curious to see whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works will have the courage that he had when he was on the other side of the House. I think that he will because he is a courageous man, but I am curious to see which way he will vote tonight.

Allow me to recall all the votes that the Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance have recorded; all the votes that they cast to collectively deny rights in matters of labour relations, hate crimes, collective agreements or on the subject of surrogate mothers in connection with new reproductive technologies or again in terms of the Criminal Code. In a systematic manner, the Conservatives have told our fellow Canadians that they do not recognize persons of homosexual orientation as citizens. It is unbelievable. It is unbelievable that a political party could act in such a way in a democracy such as Canada.

In 1995, I tabled a motion calling on the government to take the necessary measures to legally recognize same sex spouses. All the Conservatives—who at that time were members of the Progressive Conservative party—voted against that motion.

On June 8, 1999, an hon. member, Eric Lowther, tabled a motion proposing:

That, in the opinion of this 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 was a second denial of the rights of gays and lesbians: 53 Reform members voted against the motion, as did 13 Conservative party members. At that time, they were two separate parties.

Third, in 2003, a motion by the current Prime Minister reiterated the debate in the same terms. It was the third denial of the right of gays and lesbians to civil institutions. That is clear.

Fourth, in 1995, Allan Rock tabled Bill C-41 to reform sentencing, specifically, section 718, which recognizes certain aggravating circumstances when crimes are committed. The gay community mobilized in favour of anti-hate, anti-racist legislation. The government wanted to include beating someone up because of their sexual orientation as an aggravating circumstance in the Criminal Code. They voted against it. Can you imagine that? We were in a situation where people were being beaten up. In Ottawa, some people had been thrown off a bridge. Nevertheless the Conservatives voted against the addition to the Criminal Code of provisions respecting hate crimes, and they voted unanimously.

In 1996, further to a court decision, moreover, Bill C-33, amending the Canadian Human Rights Act, proposed the addition of sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination. The Conservatives did not want sexual orientation to be recognized as a prohibited ground of discrimination. We were a long way from the question of marriage.

I repeat, every time they have had the opportunity, the Conservatives, almost unanimously, have behaved like institutional homophobes. This alone makes them quite unfit and unworthy of forming a respectable government respected by our fellow citizens.

The conservatives voted against the addition in collective agreements of rights for gays and lesbians. In 68 laws, they voted against the recognition of common-law spouses and therefore homosexual common-law spouses. They voted against the bill by our former colleague for Burnaby—Douglas, a riding now brilliantly represented by his NDP successor. They voted against the provisions concerning hate propaganda. Of course they voted against Bill C-38 almost unanimously.

So what message is it sending? What message does it send when a government says that, whatever the circumstances, whether we are talking about education, the Criminal Code, labour relations, emotional relations or hate propaganda, it will never respect the rights of one category of citizens? What they said is that the simple fact of feeling sexual desire that is different from that of the majority makes us less entitled. That is what the Conservatives have said throughout their history. That is what is quite incredible.

Imagine what that means for someone who is 14, 15 or 16 years old and discovers that he or she is homosexual. No later than last year, we were reminded that 30% of young people who are homosexual still put an end to their lives. They commit suicide. Is it not our responsibility as parliamentarians to do something about that? This is not about promoting conversion therapies. This is not about telling heterosexuals that they should undertake to become homosexuals. That is not what we are talking about. We are speaking to our homosexual citizens.

We can argue about whether it is hereditary or whether it is acquired behaviour. There is literature on this. Opinions may vary. One thing is sure, though, and that is that I will never have any respect for people who rise in the House and say that just because a man is gay or a woman is a lesbian, they do not have the same rights. That is the essence of the debate. When we are seated in Parliament, the only value that should motivate us is the right to equality.

There is no state religion in Canada, regardless of what people might say or think. It is not because people belong to a certain religion that they can deny the rights of other citizens. That was the judgment handed down by the Supreme Court.

The previous government made use of its prerogative under section 53 of the Supreme Court Act to ask the court to provide answers to certain questions.

The first question was whether marriage and particularly civil marriage as defined in clause 1 of Bill C-38 was a federal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court said yes. I respectfully admit to my hon. colleagues, of course, that a person does not need a doctorate in law to know that.

The next question was whether freedom of religion could give various religious denominations a right not to perform a religious marriage. The Supreme Court explained, with the supporting jurisprudence, that neither Bill C-38 nor the existing Charter of Rights and Freedoms obliged anyone, any member of the clergy, to perform a religious marriage, regardless of their religious denomination.

I would not want to live in a society where, because of my religious convictions, I was obliged to do things that are contrary to the tenets of my own faith. It is entirely reasonable, desirable and fortunate that the Supreme Court answered that the Charter or Bill C-38 would never oblige members of the clergy to perform marriages against their will. The Supreme Court said this, and obviously that had been confirmed by a number of expert witnesses.

We must remember that in 2002, the Standing Committee on Justice held hearings across Canada. We heard 467 witnesses. Obviously there were witnesses who had some expertise. It was explained to us, over and over again, that despite what was being said by the official opposition of that time and also by certain ministers, freedom of religion would never require that there be an obligation to perform marriages.

The Progressive Conservative Party has a record of bad faith. There is a desire to deny rights, and to sow the seeds of dissension and division. That is the purpose of the motion. Let us look at the dishonesty of the motion.

That this House call on the government to introduce legislation—

They have not yet introduced their legislation. They are asking for permission to introduce it.

—to restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions—

Let us talk about civil unions. Eight provinces, including Quebec, have enacted various legislation that has recognized various types of unions between persons of the same sex. This may take the form of civil unions or registered partnerships, but all of the existing legislation has two characteristics. It is never a religious marriage. It is therefore not marriage. People sometimes told us that civil union is marriage. Civil union is close to marriage, in terms of the rights protected. Most of the provinces have granted the same rights in respect of inheritance, access to health care and pension rights. Granted, the provinces that have legislated in relation to this have given the same rights to common law spouses, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.

But can we understand why people want to get married? This is where what the Conservatives are saying is totally incoherent. If the institution of marriage is an institution that should be celebrated for heterosexuals, surely it should be celebrated for homosexuals. It is not true that the sole purpose of marriage is procreation. Otherwise, just like that, we would be saying that all of our fellow citizens who do not have children will be excluded and disqualified. There are people who want to get married, people who have been married for years and other people who will get married in the future, who will not have children. That is entirely their right. It takes nothing away from the legitimacy of their union.

I would say that parenting skills have nothing to do with sexual desire. That has been documented for a number of years. How can we think that the way that an individual decides to express himself or herself sexually could qualify him or her to be a good or bad parent? If that is the case, there would never be any homosexuals in our society. In my case, my parents were heterosexuals. I was reared in a heterosexual family and I have a very heterosexual twin brother, not polygamous, but very heterosexual.

Surely you will understand that homosexuality is not something that is transmitted within a family. One thing is certain, however, and I will say this again, I firmly believe that when we are sitting in Parliament, we may not get up and tell people that they have fewer rights because they are different sexually. That is what the Conservatives want to do. The reference in the motion to civil unions is not appropriate, because the federal government has no responsibility for that. It is under the jurisdiction of the provincial governments and there are eight provinces that have legislated in that regard.

Let us look at what it says a little further on in the motion. In order to get the support of other parties, it says that not only should the government introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions, which do not have anything to do with marriage and do not concern the federal government, it adds: “while respecting existing … marriages”. Forgive me for saying it, but it would be pretty unbelievable if anyone thought we had the power as legislators to say that.

Do you know how many people got married in Canada? In November, there were precisely 12,438 people who got married. Obviously we cannot tell them to end their union. The first principle is that a law is never retroactive. We cannot say that to the 12,438 people who got married. There are some in all the provinces, even in very conservative Alberta where 409 people got married. I do not think that there were many Conservatives invited to the weddings of those 409 people. So there are some in every province, and it is pretty dishonest and pretty misleading to include in a motion that someone even thinks that they are not going to undo the unions of people who are married.

I repeat, I think that it is not to the government’s credit to reopen the file on same sex marriage. In my opinion, once and for all, we must say that as parliamentarians we believe in the most complete equality among people.

Every time there is talk of making some social advances, I am sure that our elders will recall how some people behaved when the question of legalizing divorce came up. It used to be that getting divorced involved private legislative initiatives and was more a matter of Senate responsibility.

I am convinced that people will remember how the most conservative minds reacted when the subject of establishing a lottery system arose. I am convinced that people will remember how the most conservative elements in our society behaved when there was talk of the equality of women. Seventy-five years ago, women were not even recognized as legal persons. Women had no standing in court and could not run for office.

Yet, all these changes were made in the name of the ideals of tolerance, equality and generosity and we are all the better for them. In my opinion, the best thing that can happen in life is to fall in love because it is when we love that we desire to do things for our community. To deny individuals the right to be in love is quite shameful and I hope our citizens will remember that.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister if he could tell me what is the crisis in marriage that the government is responding to? Have we seen any reason to reopen this debate at this point? Is there a decline in marriages? Are people abandoning the institution of marriage because of Bill C-38? Is there any documentation to show that there is any kind of a crisis in marriage?

Have any religious institutions, priests, rabbis or ministers been forced to marry a gay or lesbian couple when that was against their religious belief, their theology or their religious practice? What is the absolute crisis that necessitates us spending this debate time today and dealing with the possibility of reopening a long debate, when we have just completed that in the last Parliament with great diligence and great care?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

moved:

That this House call on the government to introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions and while respecting existing same-sex marriages.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to begin the debate on today's motion. As the sponsor of the motion, I will like to take a few moments to explain to the House why the government is moving forward with today's motion and the government's position with respect to it.

Some members may ask why the House needs to be consulted on this issue, After all, less than two years ago, this issue was debated and voted on in this House, in the form of Bill C-38, the Civil Marriage Act.

At that time, a majority of the members decided to approve a law to define marriage for civil purposes as the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others. That decision by the House had the effect of replacing the traditional definition of marriage as being the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. In short, Parliament decided that the definition of marriage should include same sex couples.

The debate surrounding Bill C-38 generated a significant amount of controversy. It was a divisive debate both in the House and among Canadians as a whole. That debate continues on this issue within Canadian society.

Since marriage is an essential foundation of our society, it is important that a fully democratic decision be taken by the House of Commons whether the institution of marriage should be changed. Given the importance of marriage in our society and its importance to Canadians, we made a commitment in the last election to ask parliamentarians whether they wished to revisit this issue. Our commitment stated:

A Conservative government will hold a truly free vote on the definition of marriage in the next session of Parliament. If the resolution is passed, the government will introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage while respecting existing same-sex marriages.

By presenting today's motion for a debate and a vote in the House, the government is fulfilling the commitment we made to Canadians in the last election.

Let me turn to the meaning of today's motion and its implications.

The motion itself will not change the definition of marriage. Rather, the motion asks members whether they want to reopen the debate on the definition of marriage. If the House decides to adopt this motion, the government will introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage for civil purposes. In other words, the government will present to the House a bill defining marriage as the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. It would then be up to the House to debate such a bill and to vote on whether the bill should be enacted in July.

Therefore, those who argue that the traditional definition of marriage is an essential social institution that ought to be restored and protected should vote in favour of this motion. Similarly, members who believe that there are other ways to recognize same sex unions without altering the principle tenets of one's beliefs should vote for the motion as well.

Speaking personally, I support the institution of marriage as it has been comprised for centuries in our society. It is one of the basic institutions of our society and is the foundation upon which we have built our culture. This is the position I took in the previous Parliament during the debate on Bill C-38 and it is the position I continue to hold.

While I support protecting the rights of minorities that does not mean we should alter the institution of marriage which has worked well and has been an essential part of our society for so many years. I will therefore be voting in favour of the motion as a means to restore the traditional definition of marriage.

Although we are debating a government motion, I point out that the government has indicated that members can vote according to their conscience. Given the deeply held views that members have on both sides of the debate, the government believes it should be up to the House to decide in a truly free vote on whether we should initiate legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage.

The vote on today's motion will be a truly free vote for all members of the government's caucus, including ministers of the Crown. Unlike the previous government, our cabinet will not be whipped into voting one way or the other.

Speaking as the Minister for Democratic Reform, I am proud to be a member of a government that believes issues which touch on deeply felt personal beliefs should be decided by a truly free vote.

Given that members on both sides of the debate hold deeply felt personal views on this subject, we are asking members to reflect on their views and those of their constituents before deciding how to vote. This is ultimately a decision of the members of the House to decide on their own.

To conclude, the government looks forward to hearing the views of members on this issue and we hope that this will be a respectful debate. Although there are strongly held views on both sides of the debate, each member's point of view is valid and ought to be heard.

I therefore encourage all members to participate in the debate in this spirit. The government looks forward to receiving the House's decision on this matter.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I will add a clarification to what Mr. Cullen has said. The motion says that we'd have one additional meeting per week until the Christmas break; at that point we will be done with Bill C-288, so we could then go back to the CEPA review at full speed. It keeps momentum. It keeps us updated on the issues.

There have been accusations that some do not support CEPA or even a CEPA review. I don't believe that. I believe there is a true desire to support CEPA. It's a good piece of legislation. What we've seen, basically, is Bill C-288 take over from CEPA. CEPA has been put aside. I want to give the committee an opportunity to show in good faith that it is still a priority; it is to us, and hopefully it is to everybody on this committee.

Yes, these are busy times. At the last Parliament I sat on three different committees. I sat on a Bill C-38 special legislative committee; we were meeting for many hours almost every day because it was a priority. Is CEPA a priority? Absolutely.

Basically we have an opportunity to show whether or not it is indeed a priority. I will be supporting this because it is a priority. I'm willing to work as hard and as long as necessary, and to go to as many meetings as necessary, to do the CEPA review.

I will respect the wishes of the majority to deal with Bill C-288, but, Mr. Chair, we have to continue on with the CEPA review. Morally, it's the right thing to do. Whatever is required, I'm willing to go to as many meetings as necessary for as long as necessary to do it. That's the spirit of this motion, and hopefully the majority of the committee members will agree that CEPA is indeed a priority to this committee.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from constituents dealing with same sex marriage.

The petition say that marriage, as the union of one man and one woman, excluding all others, is an institution and not merely a bundle of rights and benefits subject to the equality provisions of section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; that the institution of marriage as the union of one man and one women, excluding all others, is the foundation of families and of human society and pre-dates all states, governments and Parliaments; and that the proclamation of Marriage for Civil Purposes Act, tabled as Bill C-38 in the 38th Parliament of Canada, giving recognition in Canadian law that marriage for civil purposes is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others, section 2, including persons of the same sex, is undermining the institutions of marriage and family and the well-being of Canadian society.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a couple of petitions in which the petitioners are calling on Parliament to re-open the issue of the definition of marriage and to repeal or to amend Bill C-38 and recommit itself to the real definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. These petitioners are from British Columbia. I have a similarly worded petition from the Halifax West riding in the province of Nova Scotia.

Air Canada Public Participation Act

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak on behalf of the official opposition in support of Bill C-47, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

Basically Bill C-47 is an administrative response to the restructuring of Air Canada that took place last year. In that restructuring, Air Canada, a former crown corporation, became a subsidiary of ACE Aviation Holdings Inc.

Bill C-47 requires that the provisions of the Air Canada Public Participation Act in respect of the Official Languages Act and the location of Air Canada's head office in Montreal be applied also to ACE Aviation Holdings Inc.

Air Canada has never given any indication that it intends to abandon Montreal and a few months ago, the company signed a long-term lease in that city.

Air Canada, furthermore, views its language proficiency as a competitive advantage. Like Air Transat, Air Canada is a private sector airline with its head office in Montreal, its hub in Toronto and employees who strive to speak both of our official languages correctly.

Air Canada is committed to using both of Canada's official languages. It is also committed to remaining in Montreal.

The Conservative Party caucus is in favour of this bill because its spirit flows directly from subsection 91(i) of the Conservative Party of Canada Policy Declaration, which reads as follows:

A Conservative Government will support the Official Languages Act ensuring that English and French have equality of status and equal rights and privileges—

If English and French truly have equality of status and equal rights and privileges, these obligations must apply to the leading national air carrier, especially since it is the only one to offer service to many international destinations.

Finally, Bill C-47 is largely a housekeeping bill, its spirit flows from the Conservative Party of Canada Policy Declaration, and Air Canada is not opposed to it.

We will accordingly support Bill C-47.

This having been said, I wonder whether Air Canada's government relations department continues its enthusiastic support of the Liberal government.

Senator David Angus, a former Air Canada board member, has informed me that legislation such as the present bill would subject Air Canada to a much higher level of official languages compliance than what is required of Air Transat. He informed me that the difference between Air Transat's version of bilingualism and Air Canada's compliance with the Official Languages Act costs Air Canada some $11 million a year. Clearly, this issue falls within the expertise of the official languages committee, not the transport committee. It would be my recommendation that Bill C-47 be referred to that committee instead of the transport committee.

At the same time, given that virtually every current and former member of Air Canada's government relations team--let me repeat that every current and former member of Air Canada's government relations team--virtually every single one of them has worked either for a Liberal MP or for the Liberal Party during the last election. I can only assume that Robert Milton and Montie Brewer and Air Canada's senior management support Bill C-47.

As transport critic for the official opposition and a very frequent Air Canada passenger, I have official and unofficial contact with Air Canada at many different levels and I can say that its support of the Liberal government is truly bizarre.

Even as recently as October 31, Liberal Senator Percy Downe called on the Senate to examine current government imposed operating requirements on Air Canada. In particular, he is concerned that Air Canada serves Charlottetown from Montreal instead of Toronto. He told the press:

My inquiry will examine the current, government-imposed operating requirements on Air Canada and the responsibility and opportunity for the Government of Canada to impose additional conditions on Air Canada so all Canadians can enjoy reasonably comparable levels of air service at reasonably comparable levels of cost, no matter where they live.

His statement ignores the fact that Air Canada's Charlottetown service now flies from Montreal in accordance with the transport minister's advice that airlines concerned about high rent at Pearson airport move flights to Montreal. He also ignores the fact that WestJet now offers Toronto-Charlottetown non-stop service with much bigger planes than Air Canada offers.

Nonetheless, the Liberal senator argues, “It is entirely within the power of the federal government to impose service and operating conditions on Air Canada”. In fact, such is the Liberal Party's fascination with regulating Air Canada that in the past three years the airline has been mentioned by name in four separate government initiated bills, Bill C-38, Bill C-26, Bill C-44 and Bill C-47. The company has been mentioned by name in the House some 360 times since the 2000 election.

Based on statements made in the House by Liberal and NDP MPs, they want to tell Air Canada what planes to buy, where to maintain them, where to fly them, what ticket prices to charge, how to advertise and how to manage their businesses. Perhaps MPs with these concerns should go ahead and buy Air Canada stock. Personally, given that Air Canada is a private company, I believe that these decisions are best made by Air Canada management. As a result, I believe that Air Canada probably wants as little government attention as possible.

For example, in June 2003 after Air Canada's first Montreal-Beirut flight had taken off, the government cancelled Air Canada's permission to fly the route. Air Canada had promoted the route for several months and informed the government that the national airlines of France, Germany, Holland, Italy and the U.K. were all serving Beirut. Nonetheless, at the last minute the Liberal government cancelled the route, citing security concerns.

A similar situation happened this past July. The federal government had given Air Canada permission to operate Toronto-Calgary-Shanghai freighter service. At the time Air Canada did not have a suitable aircraft so it leased one from California based World Airways. Here it was following the lead of Canada's military, which leases Russian cargo planes to fly our troops and supplies overseas.

A couple of days before the first flight was to depart, Ajay K. Virmani, whose company Starjet flew the Prime Minister during the last election, complained. He said that Air Canada would compete unfairly against him on the Toronto-Calgary portion of that flight. The Minister of Transport ignored the fact that Air Canada is allowed to fly any size plane it wants on any route within Canada and agreed instead with the Prime Minister's friend. Air Canada was forced to cancel the Calgary stop on its flight to Shanghai as a result.

The cancellation of the Calgary stop on the Toronto-Shanghai service had negative financial consequences for Air Canada in the same way that the company was hurt by the previous decision to cancel the Montreal-Beirut service at the last minute.

However, when the Liberals do not directly target Air Canada, their ill-conceived policies can cost the airline significant amounts of money. For example, Air Canada's major hub is Toronto's Lester B. Pearson International Airport. Air Canada and its affiliate Jazz operate up to 660 daily flights and departures at Pearson airport, serving more than 100 destinations, representing approximately 35% of Air Canada's total operations.

From Pearson, Air Canada flies non-stop to three other continents, Asia, Europe and South America. In this respect, Air Canada's operations at Pearson compete directly against United's hub at Chicago O'Hare, Delta's hub at Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson and those of Northwest Airlines at the Detroit Metro Airport.

When it comes to Air Canada's Toronto operations, the current Minister of Transport is Air Canada's arch-enemy. He is well aware that federal airport rents and charges together with federal agencies that use free space at Pearson have helped to make Pearson airport the most expensive airport in the world. However, he does not care. He thinks that airlines that are concerned about high rents and taxes at Pearson should fly instead to Montreal.

The transport minister wants us to believe that he has Air Canada's best interests at heart. However, on May 9 when he introduced a package to cut airport rents nationwide, he offered average savings of 52% to Canada's larger airports while only offering 6% to Pearson. This unfairness was underlined by the fact that while other airports faced an immediate rent reduction, Toronto's rent actually increased this year due to a requirement to repay the deferred costs of the SARS crisis of 2003.

Compounding the problem is the fact that when Delta sells a Peruvian customer a Lima-Frankfurt ticket, the routing goes via Delta's hub in Atlanta, which has one of the lowest landing fees of any major U.S. airport. If Air Canada sells the same passenger a Lima-Frankfurt ticket, the routing passes through the world's most expensive airport, Toronto Pearson.

Both Toronto Pearson and Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson are large well-run airports. However, this year Pearson will pay a staggering $144 million to Ottawa as a result of the transport minister's airport rent, airport taxes policy. On the other hand, Atlanta receives airport support of up to $47 million a year in grants from the U.S. government. The difference has a huge impact on landing fees, taxes and passenger traffic.

As Air Canada and Delta compete for the business of the Lima-Frankfurt traveller, both airlines have similar aircraft and similar costs. However, because of the difference in airport taxes, Air Canada either has to charge more to cover Toronto's high landing fees or make less profit in order to match Delta's price.

By continuing to ignore this situation, the Minister of Transport is delivering a slap in the face to Air Canada's 12,000 Toronto based employees and telling them, “You have to work harder for less so that Air Canada can pay my taxes and compete with foreign carriers”. Unfortunately, although the minister has been made aware of this problem several times, he has chosen to turn a deaf ear.

At transport committee on October 27, one week ago today, in response to yet another call for rent relief at Pearson airport, the minister said, “I have never met a normal person who has talked to me about airport rent unless they have a vested interest”.

I can tell this House that my office is aware of the following vested interests who have called for urgent rent relief in order to let Air Canada compete on a level playing field with its international competitors. They include: the Air Transport Association of Canada; the International Air Transport Association; the Association of Airline Representatives in Canada; the Canadian Airports Council; the Canadian Courier & Messenger Association; the Association of Canadian Travel Agencies; the Canadian International Freight Forwarders Association; the Greater Toronto Hotel Association; and the Tourism Industry Association of Canada.

However, seven significant non-vested interests have joined the call for rent relief as well. They include: the City of Toronto, including council and Liberal Mayor David Miller; the City of Toronto Economic Development Committee; the City of Brampton, Mayor Fennell; the Province of Ontario, including Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty; the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport; the Canadian Chamber of Commerce; the Toronto Board of Trade; the Brampton Board of Trade.

It appears there is no way at all to wake up the transport minister or to convince him to move forward to cut Toronto's rent. I want Canadians to understand that no one should be able to claim to be our national transportation minister while undermining the ability of a major Canadian international airline to compete against foreign carriers.

Let me be clear to this House and to all Canadians, a Conservative government would quickly deal with the tremendous unfairness and the oppressive rents that the federal Liberals are charging Air Canada's Toronto hub.

If Bill C-47 is the transport minister's idea of legislation to assist Air Canada, let me paint a very different picture.

A Conservative government would negotiate an open skies agreement with the United States with a view to promoting increased economic opportunities for Canadian air carriers. One way to do this would be for Canada and the U.S. to grant modified sixth freedom rights to each other's countries.

Modified sixth freedom is a way of describing the situation where a Vancouver passenger buys a Vancouver-Minneapolis round trip ticket on Northwest and a round trip Minneapolis-Montreal ticket also on Northwest and combines both tickets to fly Vancouver-Minneapolis-Montreal round trip.

The granting of sixth freedom rights is attractive because they do not require airlines to offer a single new flight, but offers them increasing flexibility to sell seats on any flights that they offer. For Air Canada, modified sixth freedoms would offer increased revenue opportunities in particular at its Toronto hub.

Like many major Canadian airports, Pearson has Canadian customs facilities as well as U.S. preclearance facilities. Typically, U.S. bound Canadians preclear U.S. customs before departure in Canada, but clear Canadian customs after they return to Canada. Often Canadian and American customs and immigration facilities are actually located side by side in the same airport. This operating reality means it would be theoretically possible for an airline passenger arriving in Toronto from Los Angeles to stay in the U.S. precleared in transit zone and board a connecting flight to New York on Air Canada without ever having to step foot on Canadian soil legally.

Given that Air Canada offers non-stop daily flights to 41 U.S. cities from Toronto, as compared to the 60 U.S. cities served by US Airways from Pittsburgh, granting Air Canada modified sixth freedom rights would allow it to make Toronto a mid-size U.S. hub almost immediately and with virtually no additional cost.

Given that the revenue calculations of Air Canada's 41 Toronto U.S. routes are based on transborder and U.S. international traffic, the income from exploiting its potential modified sixth freedom rights would go straight to the bottom line.

Further, given Toronto's geographic location and the impressive number of U.S. destinations that Air Canada serves from it, the potential economic benefit to Air Canada of modified sixth freedoms is quite significant.

Research was done last May by Professor Richard Janda and students Shy Kurtz and David Dubrovsky of McGill University Institute of Air and Space Law. They argue that for the top 15 U.S. domestic pairs, a routing via Toronto would be competitive with a routing via most U.S. domestic hubs. In other words, as a U.S. hub, Toronto would be competitive with Chicago, Detroit, Minneapolis and Pittsburgh.

All that is required for this to happen and to move forward is a forward thinking negotiation and a dramatic reduction in airport rents that the Liberal government currently charges at Pearson airport. The Liberals prefer to see Pearson airport instead as a major cash cow to be exploited, while they take Toronto voters for granted. The Conservatives see Pearson as an engine for economic growth to be nurtured and built upon.

Bill C-47 would require Air Canada to offer bilingual service on all of its flights around the world. Air Canada management willingly embraces this initiative and sees its ability to serve customers in various languages as a competitive advantage, yet another way to lure international travellers to fly Air Canada. This is a positive thing. We have no problem with this as Conservatives. We embrace official bilingualism.

The global airline industry is intensely competitive. The impact of government policy on the major airports that airlines use as hubs cannot be understated. The fact that Amsterdam is served by flights from countries in South America that are not also served from Toronto is symbolic of the problem. Dutch government backed Schiphol airport in Amsterdam has some of the lowest fees in the world, while Toronto has the world's most expensive. This reality and aggressive marketing allowed KLM to profitably serve from Amsterdam destinations which are not flyable from Toronto due to government costs.

Through visionary thinking the Dutch government has positioned Amsterdam's Schiphol airport as a truly global gateway and a major engine for economic growth for its country. For example, the greater Toronto area has three times the population of greater Amsterdam, yet Amsterdam's Schiphol airport is significantly bigger than Pearson and handles nearly 50% more passengers. Amsterdam's airport has flights to 251 destinations, over 100 of which are outside of Europe. Pearson on the other hand has flights to 110 destinations, only 42 of which are outside of Canada and the United States.

I understand that the size of an airport and the number of flights it receives are dependent on a number of factors, such as geography, history and the economic development of the area. Nonetheless, forward thinking Dutch aviation policy has allowed Amsterdam to grow into the world's ninth busiest airport. This is particularly impressive when we realize how close it is to London Heathrow, Paris Charles de Gaulle, and Frankfurt, all of which are among the world's top eight busiest airports.

I would like to suggest that part of the reason Amsterdam's airport is so successful is that the Dutch government has been at the forefront of negotiating open skies agreements with other countries. In addition, the Dutch government sees Amsterdam airport as a major driver of that country's economy and that is reflected in various government policies which support the development of the airport.

This House will soon pass Bill C-47, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act. The Minister of Transport will be happy to see Air Canada providing bilingual service wherever in the world he flies.

In the meantime, this same minister must do everything he can to further the economic opportunities for Air Canada and the other Canadian airlines by enacting the measures proposed in this House. From Air Canada's perspective, the minister may well want to address this issue, but his progress to date has been less than impressive.

Pacific Gateway Act

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand in the House today, both as an MP for North Vancouver and as the chair of the B.C. caucus for the Liberal members in British Columbia, to speak to Bill C-38 and offer our support and my support.

This important legislation may have found its inspiration in western Canada but there is little doubt that strengthening Canada's position in the competitive world of international commerce will benefit our entire country. Today I want to outline some of those benefits.

However, before we start with economic benefits, it is important to note that the Pacific gateway strategy is about positioning Canada in the rapidly evolving world of international commerce, but it is more than that. It is also about more than doing business.

The Pacific gateway strategy recognizes that not only products will be passing through this Canadian gateway. The gateway will also welcome the multitudes who travel to Canada each year. To put it in context, last year Canada welcomed more than 87,000 Chinese tourists, generating some $150 million in revenue for our tourism sector. Many begin their visit in western Canada and then travel onwards throughout this great country. With new liberalized air agreements in place, it is expected that this number could triple to over 260,000 visitors in the future from China alone. Other Asian countries are also sending many visitors our way.

Canada shows the world its commitment to diversity not only in how we embrace all cultures but in how we engage and trade with all markets, ones that are both established and emerging, such as those in China, India and other Asian countries. Trade and prosperities hinge on the rapid, seamless and secure movement of people and goods. Canada is uniquely placed and our people are exceptionally skilled to provide a gateway to serve those needs in the Pacific markets.

Many have already begun to see the advantages. For example, China is currently Canada's fourth largest export market. Our exports to China have grown more than 90% between 1995 and 2004, and during the same period, Canada's imports from China grew more than 400%, making it Canada's second largest supplier. China's recent dramatic growth is expected to continue. While it is currently the world's sixth largest economy, forecasters say that it will be the second largest by 2020 and the largest by 2041.

As a result of this growth, the B.C. government predicts that by 2020, container cargo coming through British Columbia ports will increase by up to 300%, from 1.8 million containers to between five million and seven million containers. The value of this trade is projected to reach $75 billion by 2020, up from the $35 billion currently. This would contribute $10.5 billion annually to the Canadian economy, including $3.5 billion beyond B.C. The trade increases are also projected to result in 178% growth in direct jobs by 2020, from 18,000 to 50,000.

If we continue to invest together in trade, we all win. We are talking about more trade, more business and more jobs for Canadians. We are talking about prosperity for all. This strategy clearly moves us in that direction.

In terms of jobs, we know that a skilled labour force and efficient labour market are ever important ingredients in Canada's winning formula for prosperity. Through ongoing investments, and now particularly the Pacific gateway strategy, markets in the Asia-Pacific can count on our country's highly educated, skilled and innovative workforce to move goods and services quickly, efficiently and in a secure manner.

In terms of trade and the economy, through the Pacific gateway strategy, our country has a unique competitive advantage to be host to trade and investment that is already flowing to these vibrant and emerging markets. Through the Pacific gateway strategy, our capacity for trade will continue to grow.

However, as I said at the beginning, this initiative will not only benefit the west, by investing in Pacific trade, Canada's economy grows and Canadians everywhere, from west to east, from north to south, stand to benefit.

An important part of the Pacific gateway strategy is that it builds upon Canada's strong record of infrastructure funding to further enhance the Canadian transportation network from west to east. Improving the transportation infrastructure by linking Canada's central and Atlantic provinces to the Asia-Pacific regions helps to reduce costs for firms involved in international trade. The reasons we should do this are clear. The central and Atlantic provinces exported close to $9 billion of goods and services to Asia in 2004, 82% of which depended upon marine transportation and port infrastructure.

Specifically, over $3 billion of Ontario's exports and close to $2 billion of Quebec's exports flowed through British Columbia to other countries, with another $50 million from the Atlantic flowing through that province as well. These provinces also imported roughly $17 billion worth of goods from Asia.

Improving logistics and security at borders while reducing transportation time are also key to attracting foreign direct investments in and facilitating exports from all parts of Canada.

With Canada's Pacific gateway strategy, the government is not just looking at transportation infrastructure. The strategy and the legislation have been designed to allow decision makers to better address a full range of interconnected issues that impact the effectiveness of the gateway and how well we take advantage of it. Deepening our links with Asia-Pacific is a central part of this: to permit Canada to support the better positioning of Canadian businesses, products and services in China and other emerging markets.

One of the specific measures that was announced October 21, 2005, as part of Canada's Pacific gateway strategy is an initiative to improve connections between Canada and emerging markets through the increased harmonization of standards. International standards and technical regulations directly affect more than 80% of the goods traded world-wide each year, with a total estimated value of more than $4 trillion U.S. The funding in this initiative will support Canadian participation in bilateral and multilateral standards harmonization activities and foster a greater understanding among implicated stakeholders of standards harmonization activities and developments and their impact on trade.

Mutually acceptable international standards, certification procedures and accreditation guidelines promote increased reciprocal market access for Asian and Canadian firms. Standards result in technology diffusion, common certification approaches and testing procedures. They also increase product interoperability, encourage innovation and reduce trade barriers. In addition, harmonizing standards increases product safety and encourages environmentally sustainable activities. This initiative will promote better access to Asian and other markets for businesses right across the country.

Of course, the Pacific gateway is not the only Canadian trade gateway. There are a limited number of other potential locations where an integrated gateway approach may be warranted by trade volumes of national significance and by transportation policy considerations.

In that vein, Transport Canada is developing a national strategy gateways and trade corridors policy framework that will guide future measures to tailor the gateway approach to other regions. While this framework will be based on the principles of the Pacific gateway strategy, future measures will not be identical to it. Instead they will be tailored to the circumstances and the opportunities in the regions concerned.

Canada's Pacific gateway strategy is an important part of the federal government's efforts to enhance Canada's long term prosperity. It will strengthen Canada's trade relationship as a leader in technology, manufacturing and service industries and support Canada's record as a safe and desirable country for tourists. It also represents a new policy direction for the government and builds upon other major initiatives to promote sustainable development, such as Canada's new deal for cities and communities, and will establish directions in transportation policy.

As my colleague pointed out, this strategy may be international in outlook but it is domestic at its core. Canada's Pacific gateway strategy has important advantages and benefits not only for western Canadians but also for Canadians right across the nation.

I look forward to helping implement this strategy which will bring further prosperity to all regions of Canada. I am sure everyone understands how important port activity is to my riding and to the people of greater and Lower Mainland British Columbia, not only for the movement of goods but also for the movement of people and tourists through western Canada to all of Canada.

Petitions

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents of Oxford who recognize that Bill C-38 is passed, but they ask Parliament to enact legislation defining marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman.

Spirit Drinks Trade Act

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today in support of Bill C-38. The bill respects the implementation of an international trade commitment by Canada regarding wines and spirit drinks.

The bilateral agreement between Canada and the European Union affords the Canadian industry recognition and protection to signature products. This is important because the value of this industry is tied to the inherent value in Canadian brands.

The Conservative Party supports the intent of the bill as an export strategy for the Canadian wine and spirits industry. Conservatives are very supportive of rules based trading systems, especially ones that help secure international markets for Canadian products and that help ensure that Canadian consumers have access to high quality products produced in other countries.

As such, we support the general thrust of the bill and the agreement that it helps implement.

Formal recognition by the European Union of rye whiskey exclusively as Canadian will provide Canadian industry participants the opportunity to invest and grow knowing that their investments will not be undermined.

The bill is good for many reasons; for the wine industry and for the distilleries. It also is good for rural Canada. Why rural Canada specifically? Many of Canada's distilleries, wineries and breweries are based in rural Canada, so they provide jobs which are good. Also it is agriculture which takes place in rural Canada that provides all the ingredients for these beverages. After all I have not seen many corn fields or grape fields in the middle of downtown Toronto. Therefore, this is good for rural Canada.

As our brand names become known on the international stage and through this bill, which would protect the integrity of those products, in other words people from other countries would be unable produce copycat products, the integrity of our products will be preserved. That will encourage our Canadian distillers and wineries to continue using Canadian product that comes from rural Canada.

Rural Canada does not just feed the cities, it also provides power. Rural Canada also provides the key ingredients for all our world famous wines and spirits.

Many people are confused by the bill. I have spoken with different people about it. They are afraid we will be unable to buy Merlot wine again. That is not the case in fact. The bill would is protect Canadian wines on a regional basis and Canadian spirits such as rye whiskey. No matter where we go in the world, if we order rye whiskey, we would be certain that it came from Canada and was made here with Canadian product.

This is a good thing for Canada on the world stage. We have a high quality reputation on the world stage. Our rye whiskey has been available around the world. There has been a demand for it for many years. Our grapes are quality, whether they are from the Annapolis Valley, or southern Ontario including my own riding of Haldimand—Norfolk, particularly the Niagara Peninsula, or the grapevines across the Prairies or the Okanagan Valley. The wines we make in Canada from these grapes are winning first prize awards around the world. It is wonderful for Canadians to be represented that way on the world stage.

I said that there was some confusion. Merlot is a grape, but for many years some thought that was a region. Italy and France have had regional protection of their wines for many years. If we go into a restaurant and order a glass of Bordeaux, we know that it comes from the Bordeaux region in France. Its quality is very carefully controlled. It is the same thing for Burgundy as well as the many great Italian wines. They have regional designations that protect and promote the integrity of the quality that wine.

The proposed bill will open the doors for our wines to have that same promotion and that same protection. This is a good thing. We will be unable to refer to a Bordeaux or a Burgundy because those come from France. We will be able to promote the Niagara Peninsula and the doors will be opened for our great Pelee Island wines as well. There are many other award winning wines produced in Canada, but I do not have the time to go through them all today. I congratulate them for being such ambassadors for us on the world stage

Another benefit of protection and bringing us in compliance is a number of years ago legislation was originally written to protect a product very similar to our rye whiskey, and that is Scotch whisky. Scotch whisky is very special. It is called the water of life. As we know, it comes from Scotland. However, that has not always been a controlled situation.

Many years ago one of the eastern nations decided that it wanted to meet the taste buds of its population by providing a Scotch-like product. The rules at the time on the international stage said that it could only be Scotch whisky if it were made in Scotland. It was a bit loose on the definition. One very ambitious distillery decided to make Scotch-type whisky in a town that it renamed Scotland so all bottles then could say “made in Scotland”. Fortunately the powers that be on the international stage got together and recognized the type of deception that was attempted there. That is why they tightened up the rules. That is why I am so glad that as we proceed with Bill S-38 we are tightening up the rules even more so to protect Canadian product.

Contrary to what the parliamentary secretary said during his speech, we have a few concerns with the bill. When we spoke with Canadian distillers, they indicated that they still had some concerns. While they are generally in support of this bill, there are a few things that they would like to see fixed.

First, they believe that there is a need for the government to eliminate certain provisions currently found within the food and drug regulations that would duplicate provisions in Bill S-38 if passed. Second, they are also requesting, though, that no provisions be deleted from these regulations without a comprehensive and full consultation with the industry.

Quite frankly, that request on the part of the distillers causes me some concern. We have seen all too often in the 12 months that I have been in the House that while the Liberal government has claimed consultations with industry, in fact it has met with maybe one stakeholder, if it is being generous on that given day. However, in terms of doing a cross-spectrum consultation to get the impact of its decisions on others, we have not seen that at all.

We are dealing with this very issue on Bill C-27 these days, where industry has not been considered. The impact of the government's intentions and actions has not been duly considered, and we are looking at a real mess coming up there.

I am not sure that this is the time or place to address it, but my Conservative colleagues and I will be opposing Bill C-27 as hard and as loudly as we possibly can. Someone has to stand up for the producers and processors in our country. Sadly, the Liberal government has not done it. Fortunately, and thankfully, my Conservative colleagues and I are happy to step up and take on that role.

Apart from the elimination of the heavy-handed approach, we would also ask that the government respect the request of the Canadian distillers and this time work in close consultation with them as the changes move forward.

For purposes of due diligence and legislative housekeeping, we are prepared to consider recommendations with regard to improving the legislation, particularly with respect to explicitly defining what constitutes a spirit drink. This is something that is omitted in the bill. Normally in legislation one tends to define what the key subject is and what the parameters are. Nor is there any reference to its definition under things like the Excise Act or whether it is that definition that applies here. We would very much like to see an explicit and unambiguous definition of spirit drink to guide the interpretation of this act for its future and for possible expansion.

Some of the members on the other side of the House are chuckling to themselves as I say that as if to say, “How could anyone not know what a spirit is?”

Let me assure members that definitions change over time. A number of years ago I worked in the wine and spirits industry, and new products came out that caused a lot of concern. Perhaps members will remember the invention and introduction of the cooler. It started out as a wine cooler. Then it moved to become spirit coolers. The industry and the regulating bodies over those industries had real problems. No one could class them as wines, or spirits or beer. They did not fit any of the previous definitions.

There was a great deal of consternation at the time about the tax levels that would apply to them and how they should be priced. The provincial boards that sell their own wines and spirits have different pricing formulas depending on whether the product is classed as a wine or a spirit. No one knew what to apply because these products defied the current definitions. The world moves on. We want to ensure that whatever is in this act is very clearly defined so there can be no ambiguity.

We also will seek clarity on the necessity to reduce legislative and regulatory duplication in the food and drug regulations under the Food and Drugs Act.

We also want to seek assurances from the government about its assumption that there are currently no instances of products in Canada which are non-compliant with the bill, so we can ensure that vendors are not unfairly penalized once the act comes into existence.

The government does not appear to have anticipated what will be done if in fact there are pre-existing inventories of non-compliant spirit drink products once this legislation comes into force. The parliamentary secretary has indicated that he does not believe that there are any known non-conforming products. As we have seen so often, particularly during question period in the last week, just because the government is not aware of something happening does not mean it has not happened and does not exist. We have seen examples all this week where the government claimed not to know anything, and in fact millions of dollars of taxpayer money was being spent. The fact that the government did not know about it does not mean it did not happen.

We want to ensure with this bill that there is a thorough due diligence done to ensure that any pre-existing inventories are dealt with in a proper manner.

Overall, this is a decent bill. It will help promote and protect Canadian wines and spirits. It also will be a boon for rural Canada, both at home and abroad. For that reason, I will be happy to support it. However, we want to ensure that it is done right. For these reasons, we look forward to working on the bill as it is debated in the House.

In closing I would like to add a light note, being that it is the end of the day. I am told this is a true story, and I worked in this industry for a number of years.

The country I mentioned before, which tried to produce a product labelled “made in Scotland”, also did some market research. It decided it wanted to introduce a scotch-type whisky, but it wanted to ensure that it would sell. Therefore, it did a lot of research into popular brand names of the day. They discovered a few. One was Queen Anne. I am sure many members in the House are familiar with that. Another was King George. It thought it would get the best of both worlds so it came out with a product, which it put on the market, called King Anne.

We are trying to ensure that our quality and standards are much higher than that . I believe Bill S-38 will help us achieve that and achieve even more prominence for the quality of our wines and spirits in the world market.

Petitions

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I submit a petition signed by a number of Canadians primarily from my riding of Mississauga South. I note that it was certified on September 20, which means it was dealt with after we discharged Bill C-38.

These Canadians continue to be concerned about the issue of the definition of marriage. They simply want to remind the House that in their view the best foundation for families and the raising of children is the traditional form of marriage and that marriage is still the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament.

I guess the way that it is now put is that it be recognized in federal law that marriage be still considered to be the union of one man and one woman, which it is. However, I think they still wanted to voice their concern on this matter. That is the essence of their petition.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians, including from my own riding of Mississauga South, pursuant to Standing Order 36 and certified to be in the correct form and content. The subject matter is marriage.

As we heard prior to our break for some time, even notwithstanding Bill C-38, Canadians continue to believe that marriage is the best foundation for families and the raising of children and that the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman continues to be challenged.

The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being the lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have received a petition that I am pleased to present to the House. It is from a number of constituents in my riding of Mississauga South and it is on the subject matter of marriage, notwithstanding that we have already disposed of Bill C-38. The petitioners want to draw to the attention of the House the fact that they do not believe marriage is an institution that does not implicate human rights, that it is the best social unit for the purpose of creating and nurturing the next generation of children, and that they are concerned Bill C-38 will weaken the institution of marriage and will have unforeseen, profound and negative ramifications for children.

The point of their petition is to encourage the government to ensure that the impact on our children as a consequence of changing the definition of marriage is monitored and to ensure that there are no adverse circumstances as a result of that change.

Civil Marriage Act

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I suppose that question is somewhat academic or moot right now because we know in just a few moments we will not have any opportunity to answer that question.

Once again, I leave you with these words, Mr. Speaker. Members opposite had a choice. They could have taken the choice which would have defeated Bill C-38. They chose not to. Bill C-38 belongs to every Liberal member across the floor. Regardless of what they say in the House, the choice was there. This legislation will be passed because of the Liberal members opposite.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, let us be quite clear about one thing. We would not even be having this debate had Bill C-38 been defeated. The member and others had a chance to defeat the bill. It is not a pall on members on this side of the House that the bill will be passed in a few moments. Members opposite had a choice and they made that choice.

I only know my constituents. I am not sure what the constituents of the hon. member might be thinking about this. However, I would be willing to place a small wager that if his constituents came up to the member and asked him to to do everything within his power to stop the passage of this bill and if the member said that he choose not to because by doing so he would have to threaten to stop Bill C-48, I would suggest his constituents would want another member of Parliament who would stand up for their wishes, desires and our hopes.

The member had a choice. He chose not to make the choice.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that I will probably be the final speaker in the debate this evening, I am not sure if there is any symbolism to that or not and I am not sure if that holds any special responsibility for the Conservative Party of Canada to try to encapsulate some of the feelings that we have about this legislation.

I will take a bit of a different tack tonight and talk about choices, choices that members opposite made which brought us to this point in history tonight.

Before I do, I want to put on the record that I will be opposing this legislation. I have stated that many times before and I will continue to state my opposition to this legislation in the future. I will not go into all the reasons why. Many of my colleagues have expressed the views I hold far more eloquently than I could ever do, but I do want to point out a couple of things.

I firmly believe that by passing this legislation, we start on a very slippery slope which could affect societal change in a very adverse way. I see things which have been expressed before that could come down the pike, things like polygamy and others, while hiding behind the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am fearful that societal change could happen.

I also am a firm believer in the fundamental definition of marriage as we have known it all our lives. Marriage is and should continue to be between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. I was brought up in that environment and I will continue to believe that until the day I die. This is not to disrespect members who hold opposite views. I understand this is a highly volatile and emotional issue. I respect the views of my colleagues who have to taken opposite views. All I want to express is that I believe the traditional definition, as we have known it for centuries, is the one we continue to observe for the next 100, 200 years, ad infinitum.

Finally, my views are widely known within my riding. It is without question that the vast majority of my riding constituents agree with the position that I take. If nothing else, I will continue to represent the views of my constituents before anything else I do in this place.

Let us talk about those choices. What are the choices the government and the members opposite made that brought us to this place and time? First and foremost, in my opinion the government abdicated its right totally when it turned to the Supreme Court to have it make a decision on its behalf as to the definition of marriage. I am not a lawyer and I freely admit that, but I believe one thing. The Supreme Court of Canada and any court in this land should be there for two purposes. One is to administer the law. The second is to interpret the law. It is not to make the law. The government tried to turn the whole question of same sex marriage over to the courts. It hoped that the courts would give a decision that it could hide behind, and that is what the Liberals were prepared to do.

Much to their surprise, and probably much to their chagrin, the Supreme Court came back and said that it was not up to it to define marriage. It was up to Parliament. Yet those parliamentarians and the government, primarily led by the members opposite, continue to use the Supreme Court and its ruling, as indecisive as it was, to say that we have no choice but to allow same sex marriage. It complies with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and it is a matter of human rights. Other international institutions, such as the United Nations, say it is anything but a human right. That was their first choice.

Second, the Liberals had a choice in which they could have allowed every member of this House an opportunity to express their views freely on this issue. Did they do that? Absolutely not. Parliamentary secretaries and ministers were compelled to vote with the government's position, and that is in favour of same sex marriage.

However I have ultimate respect for a few of the members opposite. The courage of their convictions on this issue forced them to resign from the government and sit as independents.They did not decide to sit as a Conservative member or for any political reasons but to sit because in their conscience they could not support the government's view on this fundamental issue.

I give great credit to the member for London—Fanshawe and the member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont who both left the government to sit as independents. They chose to tell all Canadians, not just members of their ridings, their explicit views on this fundamental issue that was so near and dear to their hearts. That was their choice but there was another choice that was made by many other members opposite.

Over 30 members on the government side stood in this place from time to time and spoke, sometimes with passion and sometimes at length, on their opposition to the bill. However they had a choice: to either bring the government down and not allow this legislation to see the light of day, or to acquiesce to the government and allow the legislation to pass. It was their choice that allowed the legislation to pass and it will pass in the House in a few moments.

I have the greatest of respect for those members opposite who stood down because in their conscience and in their moral view they could not support the government. They did the only thing that was humanly possible within their realm of possibilities. They stood down because they did not want to be associated with a House, a Parliament and a party that would allow this legislation to pass.

I have heard members opposite say that even though they opposed Bill C-38 they could not vote against Bill C-48 because they had to vote on each piece of legislation on its own merits and that if they had voted against Bill C-48 it would have destroyed a budget that is good for all Canadians and therefore they had no choice, they had to vote for Bill C-48 but against Bill C-38. That is absolutely disingenuous.

If Bill C-48 was such good deal for Canadians why was it not contained in the budget that the government originally brought to the House two weeks before they made a deal with the NDP? This was a choice that members opposite made. However the point I want to emphasize is that even if they did not wish to speak against Bill C-48, they had a choice.

We have seen the Prime Minister back down from every threat posed to him. We have seen individuals challenge the Prime Minister with bringing his government down. Danny Williams threatened the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister backed down. Premier McGuinty threatened the Prime Minister and all of a sudden there was an extra $5 billion-plus for the province of Ontario. The NDP threatened the government by saying that if it did not acquiesce to its demands it would bring the government down. What happened? The Prime Minister and the government backed down. They blink first and they do so every time.

I say to the members opposite, such as the member for Mississauga South, who have stood in this House and tried to convince Canadians that they were doing everything in their power to bring down Bill C-38, They did not do everything in their power.

Had they gone to the Prime Minister and said that they would not support Bill C-48, the Prime Minister would have blinked and this legislation would not be passed tonight. This legislation, at the very worst, would have been deferred until the fall. The members opposite are the reason that Bill C-38 will pass tonight.

Let there be no mistake and let every Canadian understand these words very clearly. There was a choice to be made on whether Bill C-38 would be passed and brought into law or not and it was the members opposite, each and every one of them, who made their choice to allow the legislation to pass through the House tonight. Let that be on their heads, not anyone else's head. It is the members opposite who made that choice and shame on them.

[Judi Longfield, Liberal, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to those members' debates and I appreciated them. This is an opportunity to put on the record how we feel. I am prepared to stand and vote my conscience. I am prepared to stand and vote the wishes of my constituents and I do not have to apologize for that. I do not think I need to be heckled or abused in standing up for what I believe. I think it is critically important. Someone called me a neanderthal because I would not support same sex legislation. It was not anyone from my caucus.

I point out that it was not too long ago that we passed Bill C-23, the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act. That legislation actually provided rights and benefits to same sex couples, common law couples of opposite sex. It brought into line the rights, obligations and benefits, married and common law, either same sex or opposite sex. I believe that benefits have been extended and extended appropriately. I do not see the need to go on to Bill C-38, because I think everyone who is living in a loving, compassionate, caring relationship has been afforded the rights and benefits and the obligations. That is important; there are obligations as well. I do not see the need to move to the next step, because while I support equality in terms of rights and benefits, I do not support it at the expense of changing the definition of marriage. I have always believed that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

I guess what upsets me is that after all of this debate, after everything we have been through, we are really ending where we began in a situation where this will continue to be a very, very divisive issue. We have all been elected to stand and to cast our vote. I can tell the House, and I can tell the constituents that I represent, that I am proud and honoured to stand in my place and to vote in opposition to Bill C-38 and to support, with all of my fibre and being, the traditional definition of marriage as being the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned that many individuals in the House have crossed some hard roads to settle on their position. He went on to say that this is an issue that maybe is not as important as some people think. He further went on to mention the number of people who sat diligently in the gallery, week after week, listening to this discussion because it is very important to them. It is certainly very important to this country.

Canadians are looking for that rational compromise, the position that the Leader of the Opposition holds, that the Conservative Party of Canada holds: the protection of traditional marriage, yet civil unions for committed same sex couples with equal rights and benefits. That is a very reasonable position. It is where the vast majority of Canadians fall in this issue. Yes, this question will be decided here in the very near future tonight.

Many members opposite have not explained their inconsistency on the question of marriage. The reason is that most of them are now prepared to backtrack on their previous commitment to preserve traditional marriage. It is this type of inconsistency that makes Canadians wonder what the government is up to with regard to Bill C-38. The Liberals have broken their promises to the Canadian people in the past on the issue of maintaining traditional marriage. Why should Canadians believe that they will not do so again on the issue of religious freedom?

These are important questions, and it is certainly something that we will be watching very carefully.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed a privilege to rise tonight in the House of Commons to represent the people of Palliser and to contribute to the important discussion on Bill C-38.

As always, I would like to thank the people of Palliser for the trust they have placed in me. I would also like to thank the thousands of people who have contacted my office and responded to the questionnaire on the definition of marriage that was included in the householder I sent out to constituents this spring.

Over the past year I have received a great deal of input on the issue of marriage from the people of Palliser. It is their views as well as my own thoughts that I will discuss in the House tonight.

The feedback I have received has made two things clear to me. First, the majority of Palliser residents support the traditional definition of marriage as that of a union between a man and a woman. That is the same position held by the Leader of the Opposition and the Conservative Party of Canada, and it is also the position that I personally support. Because of that, I will oppose Bill C-38 when it comes to a vote tonight.

A second thing also became clear in the feedback I received from my constituents, and that is that they wanted to find a middle ground on this issue. They want a government that will say yes to traditional marriage and protect traditional marriage, but one that will also find a way to allow committed same sex couples to recognize their relationships and find fair treatment under the law.

I am proud to stand here today before the House as a member of the Conservative Party of Canada for the same reason that I would imagine a lot of members on the opposite side wish they were not members of the Liberal Party, because it is the Conservative Party that has consistently articulated a middle ground solution to the marriage question. This is a position that stands firmly behind traditional marriage and support for religious institutions but that also supports civil unions for same sex couples, which means fair treatment under the law.

Most Palliser residents believe that marriage is a fundamental social institution, not only recognized by law but sanctified by religious faith. They also believe that committed same sex couples have rights to equality within society that should be recognized and protected.

The challenge, then, is finding a balance. To do that, we need to find a compromise position, a position that rejects the heavy-handed manner in which the Liberal Party has approached this issue and the dogmatic, anti-democratic manner of the leader of the NDP, who will not even allow his own members to vote their conscience or to vote according to the will of their constituents on this issue.

The people of Palliser and the Conservative Party seek balance and fairness on this issue of marriage. I would like to know why the members opposite are opposed to that effort.

Despite the usual sort of inflated rhetoric we have heard from this Liberal government on Bill C-38, the same kinds of half truths and politics of fear that the Liberals trot out during every election campaign to smear their opponents, the reality is that senior members of this Liberal government, including the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, and several cabinet ministers, once articulated views in this House that were consistent with the positions being put forward by the Conservative Party today.

Why have these Liberal members suddenly changed their minds, and why should Canadians trust them now? If same sex marriage is really about human rights or upholding charter rights, as many Liberals suggest, why did the current Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the government House leader, and the Minister of Immigration vote in favour of the traditional definition of marriage in 1999?

That motion passed 215 to 55, with the support of the current Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. In fact, when she spoke to the motion in the House in 1999, the current Deputy Prime Minister and then Minister of Justice said:

Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages.

I fundamentally do not believe that it is necessary to change the definition of marriage in order to accommodate the equality issues around same sex partners which now face us as Canadians.

I support the motion for maintaining the clear legal definition of marriage in Canada as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

It would seem highly hypocritical of the Deputy Prime Minister to criticize the position held by the Conservative Party of Canada when she herself recently supported a similar position. In point of fact, she proposed not only to support the traditional definition of marriage, but that Parliament would, to quote again from the 1999 motion,

...take all necessary steps to preserve this definition of marriage within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada.

I ask the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister why they are now turning their backs on the people they stood behind in 1999. Why are they forcing same sex marriage upon the Canadian public when they themselves supported the traditional definition of marriage only a short time ago? It is that type of flip-flop, that type of inconsistency, that makes people across the country ask whether they can trust the government to keep its word and do the right thing.

The fact that the government would force closure on the bill is another demonstration that Liberals lack not only principle but they lack respect for the democratic process itself. I remind members opposite that the purpose of debate is to allow members to make an informed decision on an issue by hearing all sides of an argument. That can only happen if debate is allowed to continue, if it is not suddenly halted because it becomes politically inconvenient for the government to listen to all positions on an issue.

We on this side of the House have faith in democracy and believe in the democratic dialogue that needs to take place on this issue and on every issue. In fact, if many of the members opposite take the opportunity to listen to debate and to contemplate the position that they themselves supported in the House six years ago, many members of the Liberal government, perhaps even the Prime Minister, may realize the benefit of the position put forward by the Conservative Party and vote against Bill C-38. At the very least, I would hope that we will not see a further erosion of democracy in this Parliament through the heavy-handed tactics of the Liberal government.

The Conservative Party stance on this issue speaks to the majority of Canadians who are in the middle on this issue. Our position is that the law should continue to recognize the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. At the same time, we propose other forms of union, whether they be called common law status, civil unions, or registered domestic partnerships, that would be entitled to the same legal rights, privileges, and benefits as marriage. This is a position that expresses the will of Canadians. It is consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Conservative Party's position also balances the needs of same sex couples with the rights of religious organizations who hold a traditional view of marriage. Our position would ensure that same sex couples have the same rights and benefits as married couples when it comes to matters such as pensions, tax obligations, or immigration matters. Our position would also ensure that there is no federal law that treats same sex couples any differently from married couples. Our position would satisfy the vast majority of Canadians who are seeking common ground on this issue. This compromise is the Canadian way, and it is the option that only the Conservative Party is prepared to offer.

In closing, I would urge the members here today to listen to the will of their constituents--that is why we are here, obviously--and vote accordingly. Not only are Canadians looking for clear thinking and a middle ground on this contentious issue, they are looking for leadership and they want their voices to be heard.

I am proud to say that I have listened to the people in my riding of Palliser and have represented their wishes on this important issue. I am very proud to be part of a political party that is willing to allow its members to vote freely on this issue so that the voices of their constituents can be heard. I urge all members of the House to listen to their constituents when it comes time to cast their vote tonight.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, marriage is of course understood as a heterosexual and procreative institution existing independently from the state. It always has been an indispensable bastion of freedom in our civil society, going back 140 years.

I believe, of course, that marriage is fundamental to our society. People of the opposite sex marry, bear children, and nurture those children in the best way they can. That is the way this world has been. It cannot continue to exist without that process taking place, that union of a man and a woman.

I believe that Bill C-38 really has nothing to do with the rights of minorities. At this point same sex couples are pretty much granted every legal right we can imagine. They are recognized for taxation purposes, for pensions and for everything else that heterosexual married couples are.

I believe that this is the beginning of a slippery slope. Notwithstanding what the supporters of the bill claim, which is that everything is going to be okay, I believe that if Bill C-38 passes it is going to have a direct impact on our society. It is in direct conflict with the traditional way civilization has grown. It is in direct conflict with the traditional foundation of society: man, woman, children, jobs, mortgage, bills, the way our society was built and built to a strength. It seems to me that Liberal prime ministers of the past and present have for some unknown reason done everything they could to break down the strong foundation that built our society.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, from all across my riding, and across Canada for that matter, I have been receiving letters, emails and phone calls that have been asking me these questions. With all the other problems, concerns and disparities that we have in Canada, what on earth possesses the Liberal government to be so obsessed in its drive to put through Bill C-38? Is this more important than our health care system which is practically in a critical condition itself? Is this more important than the poverty that we have in our country, and the families who are living on less than poverty levels of income trying to raise their families?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was just here and she spoke. I must ask her, is it more important to talk about Bill C-38 than the fact that despite the hundreds of billions of dollars that have been put into aboriginal programs over the last 30 years, the quality of life among aboriginals in our country, particularly on the reserves and in the cities, is at a worse level than it was 30 years ago? Is it more important than that?

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Palliser.

I think the people who have been sending me these questions have a right to ask them and the government has not answered. Why is this so important to the Liberals? What is their hidden agenda?

I want to talk about three issues. I want to talk about intolerance, religious freedom, and how the government has abrogated its responsibility to uphold decisions that are made by Parliament.

I watched the debate today and was appalled at the way that the word intolerance fell from the lips of government members who are supporting the bill. They were calling anyone in opposition to the bill intolerant because of us in the House, who dared, by reason of our own personal conviction, by reason of our own faith based belief, or by reason of the input we have had from our constituents, stand in the House and defend the traditional definition of marriage. Or, in the case of our citizens, who dared to send emails to the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP members who are supporting the bill, they too were branded as intolerant.

The hypocrisy of it is appalling after seeing the greatest display of intolerance, perhaps if I can use that word, by the Prime Minister himself when he showed that he was and is intolerant of any of his cabinet members who would want to have a free vote, threatening that they would be dismissed from cabinet if they dared to vote against the bill.

The proof came today. The intolerance of the Prime Minister was shown today when one of his cabinet ministers, because he was so convicted that he had to speak and vote against the bill, took the personal step to resign from cabinet in order to do so. Otherwise, he was not permitted. Those members over there who want to talk about intolerance just have to look around their own caucus and in particular at the Prime Minister's Office. There is the intolerance.

There is, being perpetuated by those who support this bill, what some have referred to as the big lie when it comes to religious freedom, the big lie that is being used to convince people that there is some protection for religious freedoms in this bill.

The government is using the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to say that of course religious freedoms will be protected because they are protected in the charter. I would suggest that one has only to look at the case of Chris Kempling from Quesnel, who is a constituent of mine and who, because of his deeply held religious beliefs, decided that he wanted to speak out against the same sex marriage issue.

He dared, because of his personal beliefs, to write an article in the local paper saying that same sex marriage, in his opinion, was wrong and that this country should uphold the traditional definition of marriage. He was, for his efforts, given a three month suspension by the B.C. Teachers' Federation, which he appealed in a courtroom.

He said that he was protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it says in there that it guarantees him freedom of religion and freedom of speech. His appeal was lost because, the judge said, notwithstanding that the charter guarantees freedom of religion and freedom of speech, he felt that society was able to place--and by society he meant the court--a reasonable restriction on my constituent's fundamental rights of freedom of religion and speech.

The Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP are telling us not to worry about it, that we do not have to specifically put it into Bill C-38 because, after all, the charter is going to protect us. Let us ask Chris Kempling from Quesnel, B.C. whether the charter protected him. It did not, in the same way that the charter will not protect one's freedom of religion or, in this instance, freedom of speech, no matter how the big lie is perpetuated by the supporters of this bill. It will not.

Let us just ask Bishop Henry of Calgary about it. Because he dared to speak out against the same sex marriage bill, Bill C-38, because he dared, he got a visit, not from any of the Liberal members as they are too sly for that, but from the Revenue Canada people, saying in essence that he might want to calm down his talk about his opposition to same sex marriage because he represents a charitable tax organization, after all, and quite frankly there might be some members of the Liberal Party and some in government who might think that he is using his tax status in an inappropriate political way. Freedom of speech is not there in the charter.

I said that the government had abrogated its responsibility in defending parliamentary decisions. It did. The lawyers over there will know about the 1919 Nickle case, which was successfully used by the Chrétien lawyers to block Conrad Black's quest to become a knight. The Nickle resolution says that no Canadian citizen can be made a knight of the British Empire.

Lawyers argued that it was a duty to defend the decisions of the Parliament of Canada in any court where an issue conflicted with parliamentary decisions.

The decision stood, by a vote in 1999 and one in 2003, that this Parliament recognize marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. When the lower provincial courts made their decisions, the government did not challenge them. It was the government's responsibility to challenge those lower court decisions at the Supreme Court. It did not. The Liberals walked away from it. They abrogated their responsibility to the people of this country and to this Parliament. Shame on them.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Madam Speaker,on this historic last day of debate in this House on Bill C-38, I am pleased to have the honour of speaking in favour of the civil marriage act.

The debate has been a long one. A full range of arguments both for and against the extension of civil marriage to same sex couples has been articulated and discussed in many forms, and not just in this House. It has also been in the legislative committee of the House, which recently re-examined the bill, and in the standing committee that discussed this question in 2003. The issue has also been discussed in the courts, in different jurisdictions, in the media, and of course in the public sphere.

I would like to use my time today to quickly review the legal framework of the bill for tonight's vote.

As the Minister of Justice pointed out this morning, the bill is organized around two very fundamental rights and freedoms in our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The first is the charter protection of equality and minority rights, in other words, the extension of access to civil marriage to gays and lesbian couples. The second is the charter protection of religious freedom, in other words, the assurance that religious groups would remain free to follow their beliefs and make their own decisions about what marriage is within those beliefs, and that no religious official can be forced to perform marriages that are contrary to his or her beliefs. Both of these charter principles are fully respected and affirmed by this bill, which is rights protecting legislation.

Courts in eight provinces and one territory have already changed the law to extend equal access to civil marriage to same sex couples. Thousands of same sex couples are now legally married in this country. As a result, the decision now for the Parliament of Canada is not only whether to extend these rights, but whether to take away charter rights from a minority group.

Some Canadians have expressed concerns that the courts have made this decision rather than the elected Parliament. Although it is the court decisions that have changed the law, it remains up to Parliament to make the final decisions.

Under the Constitution, Parliament and the courts both have important and complementary roles. It is an important part of the courts' mandate, given to them by Parliament when the charter was passed democratically, to examine current laws to determine if they meet the requirements of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a document that Parliament itself approved through a democratic process.

At the same time, Parliament is best situated to look at the complete picture in designing a Canada-wide approach that meets both the equality and freedom of religion guarantees of the charter.

I am a member of Parliament from Ontario where this has been the law for nearly two years now, and nothing is going to change in my province. Whether we vote one way or another, the law has already been changed in my province and in many other jurisdictions in Canada. It is critical that this Parliament take responsibility to act to provide a uniformity of law across our country, rather than leaving this to the courts alone any longer.

Many members have again indicated during the last days of debate that they would prefer that the legal recognition given to same sex unions be some term other than marriage, such as civil union. The Minister of Justice reminded us this morning that civil unions are not a workable option in a Canadian legal and constitutional framework. Although theoretically possible, creating a separate institution in addition to civil marriage must be done under provincial and territorial laws, not federal laws, and so cannot respect the right of same sex couples to equality without discrimination, meaning that it would still be in breach of the charter.

As the opposition has stated, Parliament has legislative jurisdiction over civil marriage, but it does not have any jurisdiction to establish an institution other than marriage for couples of the same sex. As only the provinces and territories have jurisdiction to create civil unions, the inevitable legal patchwork caused by some 13 different forms of civil unions could well result in legal confusion, but it will not result in equality.

The Supreme Court declined to answer the fourth question in the reference and returned it to us to decide, but it did not do so in a vacuum. That is important to understand. It clearly indicated, as the member just reiterated, that Parliament must exercise its jurisdiction over civil marriage in a way that complies with the Constitution and the charter.

The Supreme Court also clearly told us that it refused to answer the question not because it disagreed, but because courts in eight provinces and one territory had already made binding decisions and thousands of couples had married in reliance on those decisions. The government is not only bound by decisions of the Supreme Court but by decisions of all courts. That is how the law changed in Ontario a couple of years ago. It was not a Supreme Court decision. It was another decision of another court of compelling authority in my province.

Unless we are willing in this Parliament to use the notwithstanding clause to overrule those findings, this is not going to change. As the Minister of Justice reminded us again, the courts' decisions did not only address the common law but two statutes of the House, the harmonization act for Quebec and the modernization act, both of which set out a legislative definition of the opposite sex requirement for marriage and which were also declared unconstitutional.

The government's commitment to uphold the right to equality without discrimination precludes the use of the notwithstanding clause which would deliberately deny the right of couples of the same sex to equal access to civil marriage. If one minority can have its rights taken away by deliberate government action, then all other rights are potentially at risk.

As Canada is a nation of minorities with a history of tolerance and acceptance of differences, this is incompatible with responsible government. I believe it will be shown tonight by a vote in the House that is the accepted will democratically elected members will make.

For those Canadians who are concerned about the impact of the bill on freedom of conscience and religion, the government will uphold freedom of religion. I would not vote for this bill if I did not think this bill would not have that effect. It is an equal charter right.

I belong to a Christian faith that supports this bill. One of the things that has been difficult to take during this lengthy debate is someone telling other people they are unchristian or they have no faith just because they disagree on a rights issue. That is not the case for many members in this chamber and I think we should be respectful of each other in the way we express our views.

The Supreme Court was categorical. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms already protects freedom of religion. This protection is clearly echoed in the bill to extend civil marriage to same sex couples now in five separate places, asserting the government's commitment to religious freedom by stating that everyone has the freedom of religion under the charter and that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs. The bill only applies to marriage for civil purposes and will not have any effect on religious marriage in any way.

To extend this protection, further specific guarantees could also be made under provincial and territorial human rights acts and marriage acts. The Minister of Justice has already asked his provincial and territorial colleagues for their cooperation in any necessary amendments that those provinces or territories choose to do. I know that legislation passed in Ontario.

As the Minister of Justice has said, the charter is the expression and the entrenchment of our rights and freedoms, the codification of the best of Canadian values and aspirations. We are all its beneficiaries, and that includes the minority groups who live in my riding and who I have been elected to also represent. It is not a question of percentages or numbers. Even if there are very few as a percentage of population whom this bill protects, it is also my job to protect them. I take that responsibility seriously.

When people come to me and tell me their stories, whether it is orally in my office or through their letters, I know that many people have been suffering because they did not feel the dignity of equality. They do not want to take anything away from someone who disagrees with them. They are not asking to take away any benefit from another person. They are just asking for the legal extension of the same benefits.

The charter defines who we are as a people and what we aspire to be. It is in that spirit that the legislation has been tabled and in which the democratic debate and exercise in democracy will be carried out. It is also in that spirit, and I would suggest my hope, for equality the rights of minorities and the protection of religious freedoms that I trust the legislation will be enacted.

This is not about social experimentation. This is about charter rights for all, including what to some are unpopular minority groups in this country.

In my home constituency, it was the same charter and protection of minority rights that I went to when I was looking at anti-terrorism provisions that we were debating. I talked to minority groups that felt threatened. I used those provisions to bring areas into the legislation and to change legislation in the House with the help of others. We brought in sunset clauses to the legislation that I had found a little close to draconian at the time.

It is that same charter that gives those individuals and those communities the protection. We do not know when we will need our charter rights. There are many countries around the world that do not have those protections. Many of us have young folks who are travelling abroad. If they get into trouble in another country, those charter protections and justice system are just not there in some parts of the world. We are very fortunate in this country. I celebrate having a charter.

The right to equality, in my view, is an extremely important fundamental right guaranteed by the charter. I know that some people at different times have made comical comments, or at least they thought they were, or they did not understand how the charter could protect them and their families. I think the majority of Canadians do celebrate this piece of legislation.

Rights are rights. It does not matter if we do not like the phrase, it is still true. None of us can, nor should we, pick and choose whose rights we will defend and whose rights we will ignore. The government must represent the rights of all Canadians equally. This bill is the only way possible to fully protect both the important charter rights involved here, religious freedom and equality. One right does not trump another right. They have to coexist.

The House has a duty not only to those opposed, but to those in favour, not only to those religious groups who do not wish to perform same sex marriages, but also to those who do.

In the discussions surrounding the 1968 Divorce Act, religious groups took sides, some urging the government not to pass the civil divorce law for Canada, fearing the impact on religious practice, and others urging the government to go further and include a ground for divorce based solely on marital breakdown.

Bill C-38 already represents the Canadian compromise, the change to the civil law, while at the same time respecting the right of religious groups to determine religious law in a way that is consistent with their beliefs. I would just as forcefully argue for that protection as I would for the equality and protection of a minority, and so should every member of this chamber.

Now, as then, it falls to the civil authority to legislate in a way that allows all religious groups to continue with their respective beliefs. The way to do that is the bill before us today. I fully understand, and I do not think any member could have worked in this House for a number of years without understanding, that this issue of extending equal access to civil marriage to same sex couples is one that evokes strong feelings. That is a given. A number of my constituents as well as my own circle of family, friends and colleagues have struggled with this issue.

I want to remind those on all sides of the debate that there is a human face on this issue at all times. It is not just about rhetoric or about words. It is not just about invoking the Charter of Rights. It is about the people inside of those rights. What we decide here will impact on the lives of real people.

I have talked to many who have felt that some of the debate over the time that we have debated this have used words and thoughts in the debate that have hurt them. Some gay and lesbian couples felt that some of the debate had crossed the line. I think that was unfortunate and I hope that none of it was intended. I would like to think none of it was intended. I think sometimes some people get carried away.

Some, I know, contend that the small number of gay and lesbian people just proves that this group is so small that they do not warrant the attention and consideration being given to them by the courts and the legislatures throughout the country.

As the Vanier Institute of the Family pointed out in its presentation to our House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights when it studied this issue in early 2003, this argument is dangerously misguided.

A democratic and a just society must measure itself, not only by reference to the majority but equally by reference to how it respects each and every individual citizen, regardless of their differences, their heritage, their religion, their abilities or disabilities, their gender, their race or their sexual orientation. Surely history has taught us something, that we cannot distribute justice or fairness on the basis of numbers.

Others are concerned that gay and lesbian couples do not remain in long term relationships. While we may have little scientific data on this to date, it is interesting to note that all the court cases against the government seem to be couples who have been together for 30 years or more. Sure, not all same sex couples may stay together for 30 or 40 years, but as long as some do how can they be treated any differently on that basis?

Are children part of these couples' lives? The 2001 Canadian census indicates that 15% of households headed by lesbian couples had children, versus 3% among male same sex households. That means that at least 3,000 same sex couples are raising children in Canada today.

The children become members of these families in a variety of ways. The Vanier Institute of the Family reviewed the research available and noted that the majority of these children were born into a mother-father unit that ultimately ended in divorce or separation and the parent with care of the child then re-partners in a same sex relationship. That is not the only scenario but it is one that does occur.

How are the children faring in these households with same sex parents? This is a question of great concern to many Canadians, and it should be. They can accept that adults should be free to choose partners of their choice but they are rightly concerned about the children being raised in these relationships.

While no large-scale, definitive study exists, all the research to date suggests that the quality of parenting is a more important factor in the success of children than the sexual orientation of the parent. Indeed, as we all know, most children do not want to know about their parents' sex lives or even that they have a sex life. Maybe if one is in Parliament, one does not, I do not know.

However what makes a good family good for a child is not just the make up of that family, the married couple, the common-law, the single parent, the extended family, the only child, but that the family loves, cares and supports these children and, by extension, the community has to love, care and support these children.

We all know instances where a married heterosexual couple may be the best place for children to be raised but we all know instances where it is not. Whoever their parents are, all children need love and supervision. They all need to be sheltered, fed, taken to school and so on.

Children need and deserve the full support of government, not only for themselves but for their real families, not some make-believe family but their real families existing today on every street in Canada.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I only have a short period of time. My colleague from Burnaby worked very hard in the committee to get Bill C-38 to the House. I think it is fair that we are all accused from time to time of using too much passion in this debate, but it is a passionate issue.

We have a history when we have dealt with issues as controversial as this. I hope over the next decade and generation that we will come to realize that this did not imperil marriage in our country, it reinforced it. I hope all people approach it that way.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was here for the member's speech about an hour ago, before we went to private members' business. During private members' hour he accused the Conservatives of speaking with passion on this issue. He himself had a rather impassioned speech in his support of same sex marriage.

However, the member is a lawyer. Does he not share the concern that many of my constituents do? Are people in his own riding not expressing the concerns about protection of religious freedom, which is very much under attack through this bill?

For example, is the member aware of the case of Chris Kempling, a school counsellor in Quesnel, B.C? A judgment was passed on June 13 by the appeal court of British Columbia. Mr. Kempling wrote a letter to the editor objecting to Bill C-38 based on his religious convictions. He was suspended without pay for three months. He is not expounding this in the classroom. He is simply entering a public debate about the social policy change that those folks are abrogating, the members opposite in the coalition, to change the definition of marriage. What about his section 2 charter rights, which our charter calls fundamental rights?

The party the member represents and the members opposite purport to be defenders of the charter. Are those members not concerned that the courts are not protecting rights, which are clearly defined charter rights, of others who object to this bill?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today fully conscious of the historical significance of the vote that will take place later today. I do it with a great deal of pride because of the role that my party historically has played in advancing the rights of gays and lesbians in our country, but perhaps even more so, with a great deal of humility, recognizing that the work that has been done by other members of this House in the past probably far exceeds what we are doing today.

For me there are three buzzwords as to why we should support Bill C-38 and why we should pass it later today. One is the law, one is love and one is duty.

As a lawyer, I went through this process of watching the charter come into being and having it being applied, Back in the early eighties our country made a concrete, solid decision that henceforth we would have in place a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that would guarantee fundamental rights and that we would have a court system that would act as the arbitrator. It would apply the decisions in a just fashion and determine the rights when there was a conflict between the state, as there is here and has been, and a minority group in our country.

The Canadian public has accepted that method and we have now lived under it for more than 20 years. When the Supreme Court of Canada along with all the other lower courts made the decisions we have seen over the last few years, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was applied, and I believe applied appropriately, and they came to the right conclusion. For that reason, for the law of this land, all of us should be supporting Bill C-38.

The second buzzword is love. I am a Roman Catholic. I have been married to my wife for 36 years and we have three grown children. My Catholic community in the city of Windsor is a major support for me and has been for all my life. For the last number of years, my wife and I have taught the marriage preparation courses at our church. Having been elected in 2000, there were a number of things I had to set aside but that was one that I could not. It is a great benefit to our marriage, but it is also a great joy to see young couples entering into marriage. If we can do anything to help them do that, it is something that I am very proud to do.

One of my visions is that some day my church will allow those couples to not only be heterosexual but also to be homosexual. My vision says to me that some day this will happen. The Roman Catholic Church in this country and across the globe will follow the precedents that the United Church, the Quakers, the Metropolitan Church and any other number of Christian denominations have taken. This is about love; we will guarantee within our religious services that all couples will be treated equally.

My marriage is probably the most important thing to me, in terms of the relationship with my wife and my children. By allowing for gays and lesbians to marry, it will in no way detract from or minimize my marriage, just the opposite. When I do the marriage preparation courses with young couples, I want to share the relationship that we have been able to develop as a couple, as a family and as a community. Our marriage is very much supported by our community, and I want gay and lesbian couples to be able to share in those relationships.

Finally, the third buzzword is duty. I, like my leader, have known gay and lesbian couples who have suffered. If this legislation moves the celebration of their relationship just a little bit, it is worth passing. I had a friend involved in a mature gay relationship who took his life several years ago. I know what pain and suffering he went through. I know what rejection he suffered from some members of his family and I know the abuse he took in the workplace because he was openly gay.

Until we strike down all the barriers to full equality for our gay and lesbian community, until we do that, we are going to continue to have individuals such as my friend who are going to be pushed to the wall to the point that they take their lives. Bill C-38 is part of that work. I spent Saturday morning with the gay and lesbian community in Windsor. They were talking about the ongoing difficulties that the gay and lesbian youth of our country have in coming out and about the need for us to have services available to them. That is what the meeting was about.

If we put this bill into place, it is not going to be the be-all and end-all of the discrimination that this community has suffered, but it will advance the cause.

Therefore, my duty as an individual member of Parliament, as I pledged it when I spoke at my friend's funeral, is to support Bill C-38, to get it into play and then move on, again so that at some point in the future, like those young couples my wife and I helped prepare for marriage, we will be able to celebrate all marriages, whether they be gay, lesbian or heterosexual.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to rise to speak to this important bill, the civil marriage act, and I do so for the first time in Parliament.

As a member of the legislative committee to deal with Bill C-38, along with my colleagues I have listened to the many presentations intended originally to provide technical assistance to the committee. But many clearly did enter into the debate on the merits of the bill.

I have also listened to the many comments from my constituents and indeed from Canadians across the country. I understand that this is a difficult issue for many and I respect their views. Many in my riding support this bill and many indeed are opposed.

My role as a member of Parliament is to consider and balance competing interests in the national context and accordingly cast my vote. I understand that some may oppose my view and that it may cost me support. This is a democracy and I accept that.

I want to indicate today on the record my support for this legislation and the reasons for my support. I support Bill C-38 because it is consistent with my support for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is consistent with my faith and it is consistent with my views of what family is about.

The three aspects of the issue I want to speak to are those of principle, reason and practicality.

The principle most clearly involved here is one of equality as provided under the charter. The existing definition of marriage, as determined by the courts in eight provinces and one territory now, discriminates unreasonably and unnecessarily with regard to same sex couples. That there are objections to this view is not surprising.

Yet as has been cited, over the course of human history every advance in equality has been resisted by powerful elements of the community. Whether it was the abolition of slavery in the first half of the 19th century, the extension of the franchise to men who were not property owners in the latter part of the 19th century, the enfranchising of women in the early 20th century, or the coming of the welfare state in the mid-20th century, the objection has always been similar.

Ending slavery, it was argued, would destroy the natural social order, create economic havoc and create an artificial equality between superiors and inferiors. Enfranchising men without property would imperil the existing political order, while enfranchising women would destroy the family and cause women to lose their femininity. Creating a broad system of social supports was simply dismissed or denounced as socialism or, worse, as pure communism.

In short, one is hard pressed to think of any major advancement of human freedom or equality which has not in its time been denounced by someone, and often by those most privileged in society.

The second is a matter of reason as opposed to fear. It has been argued that this bill will somehow directly or indirectly pose threats to those religious bodies that do not as a matter of faith or doctrine approve of same sex marriage. If this were a reasonable fear it would be compelling, but is it reasonable?

As things now stand, no religious authority is compelled to marry persons who fail to meet the requirements of that particular religion. Some, as we know and as we have heard here, will not sanction the remarriage of divorced persons. Yet even though the state sanctions the remarriage of divorcees, the state has never remotely suggested that ecclesiastical authorities are under some obligation to do so and would or could or might face retribution if they failed to do so.

Similarly, the state has long sanctioned divorce itself, yet when has the state ever said, suggested or implied that religious bodies that do not sanction divorce must do so because the state does so? In a country with long and deepening traditions of religious toleration, the suggestion that some religious bodies would face retribution over this issue is, I believe, fearmongering of the worst sort.

Third, it is a matter of practicality. The fact is that same sex marriage, as I have already noted, is now legal and occurring daily and routinely in nine jurisdictions in this country.

That is the case and will remain the case, yet Canadian society seems to be carrying on in the usual way. People go to work. They read newspapers and watch TV. They have and go to parties. They worship God in their own way. There is no rioting in the streets and no unravelling of the social order. In short, people generally and married couples in particular, same sex or opposite sex, are getting on with their normal lives with neither fear nor rancour, nor, let it be noted, often with much concern about what goes on in this House.

Those opposite might wish to address how, if their wishes were to prevail, they would deal with the thousands of same sex couples who are now legally and legitimately married under the laws of their own provinces. An authoritarian government, be it of the right or the left, might not hesitate to impose retroactive legislation to turn back the clock. Is that what those opposite would do if they had power? As with all change, there are those who will fear the worst. I count myself with those who believe in the innate decency and goodwill of our compatriots.

We have heard much about the sanctity of the family and the imperative to preserve the underpinnings of the traditional family as it is defined by some. If I may be personal, I too want to speak of the importance of the family, of a family embracing and supporting all within it, of a family where all members have equal rights and equal opportunities. Like many in this House, some of my best learning has been from my own children.

I have held or sought elected office for almost 20 years. I have been involved in decision making on a number of matters relating to same sex couples, whether it be the extension of benefits or rights, or privileges and opportunities in the workplace.

In 1995, while seeking a seat in the Manitoba legislature, I was being urged by others to stay away from the issue of the day involving the extension of rights to gay and lesbian people because it might affect a byelectoral outcome, at which point my youngest daughter said to me, “Does that mean if I have a child who is gay, you would love it less?”. Needless to say, I stepped up to the plate at that time and it is in part why I support the legislation today. I do it for our children and our children's children, to ensure that all of our children have the full benefits and rights of citizenry in this great country of ours.

I recall the words of one of the parents from PFLAG, Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, who said, “The rights and responsibilities and freedoms of my straight son should be the same as that of my gay son”. He went on to say, “I find it unfair that there has always been a possibility for my adult straight son to be married, but not my gay son”.

I am proud to be part of the debate here today. I am proud to be a Canadian, and indeed a Canadian parliamentarian, supportive of this legislation, as we table and vote on this landmark legislation for our country this evening.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to bring a different perspective to this debate for the hon. member opposite.

I am adopted. I do not know my biological heritage, nor do my biological mother and father. Mine is an example of an exception to the norm of traditional marriage, that is, that male-female marriage is marriage precisely because it has procreative capacity and that marriage is the child-centred and not adult-centred institution that satisfies the lifelong need of Canada's children to know and be known by and raised by their mother and father.

The Liberal government wants to overthrow this norm and establish a new norm of marriage by calling homosexual relationships equal that have no procreative capacity at all. Does the member opposite believe that Bill C-38, with its legislative change from natural parent to legal parent, will satisfy the need of Canada's children to know and be known by and raised by their biological mother and father?

[Michael John Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted with the news you have just given us about the passing of Bill C-43 with customary speed by the Senate. That is great news for the province of Nova Scotia as well as Newfoundland and Labrador, more than fulfilling the Prime Minister's commitment of last year.

I am honoured to speak to Bill C-38, an act to extend the right of civil marriage to gays and lesbians. I will be splitting my time with one of my favourite parliamentarians, the member for Winnipeg South Centre.

The vote that we will take tonight in just a few hours will provide equality under the law for all Canadians, those men and women, our brothers and sisters, our friends and those whom we love. This vote represents one of the most clear opportunities we are likely to have to declare our faith in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to support our values of inclusion, justice and dignity.

None of us here have taken this responsibility lightly. Each of us have our own reasons to vote as we see fit. I can only affirm for my part the belief that one's human dignity is non-negotiable. Our responsibility here today is to acknowledge that reality, so that through our actions as legislators we might recognize that which we all know to be true, that gays and lesbians are fully equal and that Parliament will do the right thing, in my view, this evening.

On March 21 I spoke to the issue of civil marriage and outlined my views. Today I would like to speak about the process that we have undertaken since then, having been a member of the legislative committee dealing with civil marriage, as well as the ongoing discussions and interactions I have had the opportunity to have with my constituents.

Many people have opposed the bill and many have provided reasons as to why we should not vote on the bill tonight in a positive way. I would like to address a few of those issues.

First, some have suggested that we are rushing the bill through. I think the record will show that this is not the case at all. Indeed, some members opposite have, on the one hand, suggested that we are wasting our time on this issue because there are more important issues to deal with, as if equality is not an issue of national importance. Yet on the other hand there are members who have said that this is so important that they would like even more debate.

I believe there has been more than a healthy debate in this country, going back for years. Certainly, we have had ample witnesses appear before the legislative committee and they have expressed their views. How many more bills have had this much attention? I do not think very many. The suggestion that somehow we are rushing this through rings hollow in light of that debate.

Second, an issue that has been of particular concern to me is that it has been suggested that we should not allow this law to pass because people of faith oppose the bill. In fact, we just heard the previous speaker. He is a man whom I respect and whom we know has faced certainly challenges, but has come here to cast his vote. I respect that. But to suggest that the Prime Minister does not live his faith is outrageous. It is outrageous and outdated.

As a member of the legislative committee on civil marriage, we have heard representatives from many religions. We have heard from Catholics, Evangelicals, Sikhs, Jews, Muslims and members of the United Church. There is no unanimity on this issue. Some are against the legislation and some support it.

In fact, in our committee work we heard very positively on this bill from the Unitarian Church, some Sikhs, Rabbis and from the United Church. My own faith is rooted in Catholicism. I was raised by parents who taught me that the gospel message was about love and peace through a living faith.

I support the right of those who, because of their faith, oppose this legislation, but not all people of faith have that same view. In the end we would do well not to assume any one of us have an exclusive domain on what constitutes good morals or family values.

I agree personally with the moderator of the United Church when he suggested that supporting same sex marriage is not an abandonment of faith, but an embracing of faith. This view, expressed in simple terms, captures my own approach. I have not compromised my faith in supporting this legislation. I have embraced it.

Another question raised to exclude gays and lesbians from civil marriage was that only two other countries have adopted such legislation. Why would we want to be among the first countries to do so? My answer is, where do we want to be when it comes to embracing equality and recognizing the rights of individuals? Should we strive to be in the middle of the pack or to be the last nation dragged in?

Canada takes great pride in being the first nation to have officially adopted multiculturalism as a policy. There were many opposed to that, but we look back on that with pride and as a turning point for Canada, and that is a good thing.

We are a leader in many other areas: eliminating third world debt and patenting drugs for HIV-AIDS. The fact that we are among the first is not something we should hide. It is something we should celebrate.

Another reason we have heard not to support this legislation is that gays and lesbians do not even want this. So if they do not want it, why are we putting it forward. We have had people in committee tell us that gays and lesbians do not want to be married, but there are many heterosexuals who do not want to be married either. I do not think anyone would suggest that they should not have the right.

A number of gays and lesbians have fought very hard for that right, to have their marriages recognized as equal to those of other Canadians. I salute them. I salute their fight. I salute their courage including people like the former member for Burnaby—Douglas. Today when we vote on this issue, I will be thinking of them including my sister Jane, her partner Vicki, my godchild Rosie and her sister.

Some people feel that religion will be compromised, that religion trumps equality is what we hear. In a truly civilized society religion and equality do not compete. They co-exist easily and they complement each other. No church has been forced by the Government of Canada to marry or not marry people. That has not happened. The Catholic Church, for example, can decide who can enter into the sacrament of marriage. It alone determines who is married in the Catholic Church. That is how it should be. That is how it is. That is how it will continue.

We have even heard some people suggest that our health care will be compromised if we extend the right to marry to gays and lesbians. We have heard if we allow gays and lesbians to marry there will be an increase in all kinds of diseases and HIV-AIDS. The people who suggest that have no idea what the bill is about. The bill is not about sex at all. It is about love and commitment. Anyone who suggests that allowing gays and lesbians to marry, that it will lead to a dramatic increase in levels of sexual activity, should check with their heterosexual colleagues who may be married. They may be disabused of that theory.

We have gone well beyond the issue of whether it is right or wrong for homosexuals to have sex. A great Canadian once said, “the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation”. We have moved beyond the morality of that issue. This is not about sex. This issue is about love and commitment, and the recognition that gays and lesbians are equally qualified and equally capable of making a commitment to each other. The moral aspect is an issue we decided in this country a long time ago.

The next argument is that we should have a national plebiscite. If we had a national plebiscite on whether women should have voted, imagine the result considering that those who would have been deciding that would have been men. Or if they had a plebiscite in states like Alabama or Mississippi on whether blacks should have the vote, they still would not.

When it comes to an issue like this, the majority cannot determine the rights of the minority. Alongside the plebiscite argument are people who say we should listen to the voice of the people in our ridings and vote the way they want us to vote. I decided on this issue some time ago.

In fact, it is an issue I have supported and ran on in the last campaign when this was an issue. Rights and justice cannot be subject to a poll. Equality does not find its legitimacy in meaning through a referendum. That is not the Canadian way. I have met and spoken with hundreds of my constituents, both for and against. I have never refused a meeting with anyone because they had a different point of view and I have valued every opinion I have heard.

Today we will vote on the issue of civil marriage, Bill C-38. Today we will decide if gays and lesbians will have equal access to civil marriage as do other Canadians. This week, as we celebrate Canada Day, is a very appropriate week to vote on this issue. On Canada Day we celebrate the best of Canada, the diversity of Canada, a nation of equality, a nation of strength, a nation of compassion, a nation that believes we are stronger together than we are apart, and a nation where we celebrate equality.

Being equal does not mean that we are all the same, far from it. From those who were born here from our founding peoples, to people who came here hundreds of years ago, to people who have just recently chosen to come to this nation, we celebrate our differences. We do not all look the same. We do not all go to the same church. We do not all speak the same language. We do not all eat the same food. We are different. We celebrate those differences because those differences make us stronger. We not only encourage but celebrate those differences.

Today in this chamber we will celebrate the diversity of Canada once again. We will send a statement to the world that in Canada gays and lesbians will not be considered second class citizens. They will not be offered marriage lite; they will be offered full marriage.

When members of this House from all sides look back on this day in years to come, I believe they will see this as one step of the many steps that Canada has made to be a world leader in recognizing that one of the great privileges of freedom is equality. I am proud to support this bill.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to thank my colleague, who was the former member of Parliament for my area of Fort McMurray--Athabasca, for the great effort he has taken to be here today.

Since he has not had an opportunity to be here and since I was a member of the Bill C-38 committee, would he comment on some of the procedures that were taken by the committee? In its meetings of less than two months, it heard only 55 witnesses on this crucial issue to Canadians. Many of the witnesses complained that they received less than 24 hours notice to come to the meetings and many received less than seven days. In fact, seven witnesses could not appear because of conflicts and other issues.

We only received three or four of the briefs of the experts before the committee meetings. Many of those still have not been translated. I have not received many of them. We will be voting on this very issue tonight and we cannot even hear from the experts and cross-examine their testimony.

Could he comment on that?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in her speech the member mentioned that she had received a letter from a minister in Outlook, Saskatchewan, who had concerns about his religious freedom as a minister of religion to perform marriages as he saw fit or as his denomination saw fit. I wonder if the member reassured that minister that this legislation goes out of its way to ensure the protection of religious freedom for religious officials.

A number of the preamble clauses, which help interpret the legislation, are very explicit in standing by the religious freedoms guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They also go out of their way to say that the freedom of members of religious groups to hold and declare their religious beliefs and the freedoms of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs are protected.

Clause 3, the interpretive clause, was improved during committee hearings to be very explicit about protecting the religious freedom of religious officials to perform marriages based on their understanding, their theology, and their beliefs and doctrine.

I wonder if the member reassured that minister that Bill C-38 goes out of its way to ensure that the religious freedoms of religious officials are protected here in Canada.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on this sad occasion, a day on which the debate on an important issue will come to an end and the legislation will be pushed through by a divided House of Parliament.

It is ironic that the demise of the traditional definition of marriage should happen in the House of Commons, a House that has been built on traditions and customs. While customs are only symbolic, traditions are pleasing rituals whose observance or absence has no substantial impact on the operation of constitutional rules and principles. This House is replete with traditions.

Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with one of the other members of Parliament.

While I was thinking about what I would say today, I went to my filing cabinet and brought out the files containing all the different letters and e-mails that had been written to me. I thought how sad is was that all these people had not been heard.

I came across the words of a parish priest, Father Francis Geremia, in a recent news article. Although I found his words strong, I understood the frustration and desperation when a parish priest would go so far as to say that not only was he a former Liberal, but that he was praying that the Prime Minister would lose his riding in the next election because he could not have two faces: either he serves God or he serves the devil.

The words reminded me of this past year and at every opportunity that my own parish priest spoke about protecting the traditional definition of marriage. At Christmastime this year he took the opportunity to talk about the family and how important the traditional family was.

I am also a practising Catholic. When I heard the concerns of the Catholic church I raised them as a legislator and as a member of Parliament, not as a Catholic.

I began to come across letters that I received from many people who the members across the way purport to represent. I thought the only thing I could do today would be to read into Hansard some of the letters and opinions that have not been presented in this House.

These letters were written to me by various religions, cultural and business groups, from individuals or on behalf of thousands of Canadians. The first letter dates back to 2003 and it is from the Hindu Society of Ontario. The letter reads:

We are forwarding an appeal on behalf of the Hindus of Canada. We understand that most of the Hindus as well as a majority of Canadians are greatly worried about this legislation, which is going to have an adverse effect in the society.

On behalf of the large numbers of Hindus in Canada, we have prepared this submission with the help of a member of the Hindu clergy family and forwarding it to the attention of the Hon. Prime Minister, Members of the Cabinet, and Members of the Parliament.

Therefore we appeal to all the parliamentarians not to pass this legislation and demoralize the Canadian society. We appeal to them to listen to the majority opinion and act wisely to preserve the integrity of the Canadian nation and ensure a safe and healthy social environment in this country. It would be highly appreciated if you could acknowledge to the above address....

Another letter reads:

All the five hundred thousand Hindu families came to Canada hoping to bring up their children in a safe and decent environment. But they are all greatly upset by this proposed legislation to recognize gays and lesbians as married couples, as it contradicts their religion and culture. Not only Hinduism, but also every other religion in the world, such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism and Shamanism, disapprove of homosexual marriages. As members of the clergy family, I have had the opportunity to read about all the religions of the world. I am certain that there are no religious tradition accept this.

The members of the Hindu community as well as their clergy do not like to get involved in controversial political issues for fear of any backlash. When elections come round, they are not going to give their votes to any M.P. who say “Yes” to this legislation whatever party they may belong to. We are certain that most of the Canadians irrespective of party affiliations or religious denominations are opposed to this legislation.

It states:

The Islamic Society of North America-Canada wishes to express its opposition to Bill C-38, which would change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

ISNA-Canada is the oldest and largest grassroots Muslim organisation in North America, and on this issue, can speak confidently for the majority of Muslims in North America, who are opposed to changing the traditional definition of marriage.

The Act notes that marriage is a “fundamental institution in Canadian society,” but fails to take into account what that really means. Marriage as the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of others, is an ancient practice that has been stable across history and across cultures. While some cultures have allowed men to marry more than one wife, or women to marry more than one man, marriage cross-culturally, has never been between couples of the same sex.

Marriage is thus an institution that predates the State of Canada, which therefore, has no right to change its meaning in its constitution.

The debate in the press over this issue shows that our Government, as well as many Canadians, are confused about what is at stake.

The argument in favour of same-sex marriage invoked in the Act, centres on the concept of rights, tolerance, and discrimination.

The Islamic Society actually says and does not deny that,

...homosexual couples do form lasting bonds of commitment to each other. Let this be an institution other than marriage. The State has recognized common-law relationships in legal aspects, but has denied common-law spouses the use of the term “marriage”. Let this be similar for same-sex couples.

It is not discrimination, nor is it a curtailment of a person's rights, to say that marriage is the proper institution for the raising of children by their biological parents.

...The ramifications of changing the definition of marriage to include same sex couples will be profound.

Not enough time has been allowed for the Canadian public to explore and discuss the long term consequences.

An individual from the finance sector made this suggestion. He said:

Mr. Prime Minister, with the concurrence of Members of Parliament and the Senate, you exercise the prerogative to make laws designed to promote national harmony, to ensure that the interests of each individual or segment of society continues to be equal before the law, that one group does not usurp nor impugn the traditional dignity of another, that emerging entities be invested with an identifying title or name that is free from ambivalence, and is consonant with the provisions of any Act of Parliament related to such entity.

He advocates:

...that the homosexual citizens of our country be given their own unique appellation, and I submit for your consideration and acceptance that the Bill now before Parliament be called “Contractual Alliance of Two Same-Sex Parties” with entrenched rights, privileges, and concomitant responsibilities analogous to those enjoyed by a man and a woman who have their peculiar definition of--“Married”.

A constituent wrote to one of my local papers. He said:

Marriage, as currently defined, predates governments, states, courts and charters of rights. The Christian church's definition--“a union of a man and a woman and a communion of the whole life”--comes from the legal Digest of Roman Emperor Justinian.... Marriage existed in pre-Christian civilizations and has always been a union between a man and a woman. The Catholic Church declared marriage a sacrament in the Council of Trent (1545-63).

The Roman Catholic view of marriage is based on the Aristotelian principle of natural law. Although Aristotle originated the concept, Thomas Aquinas, the giant of Christian philosophical thought, gave it theological shape. He defined natural law as participation in the eternal law of the universe by rational creatures with an in-built commitment to doing good.

...Marriage is too visceral a principle and too sacred to many to be left to the courts to toy with. Anything less than maintaining the current definition will betray the trust Canadians have in politicians.

Another individual in southern Saskatchewan puts the woman-man issue in the proper light, “Are we trying to neuter, water down our language too much?” He states:

In the late 1920's the Supreme Court of the day clarified that a woman was not a person. Can you imagine such nonsense? Well the fight was on and things were set straight. Now, Mr. Prime Minister, you want our courts to redefine marriage as a union between two persons. This is just as ridiculous as a woman is not a person.

This essay was sent to me by John McKellar, the president of HOPE, Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism, in 2003. He said:

We neither need nor want the state in our bedrooms. We neither need nor want to be shackled by rules, regulations or paperwork. We've already won the same-sex benefits battle, so there's no longer concern over matters of pensions or estates. Let the straights keep marriage. We need to be liberated from the mainstream, homogeneous, egalitarian mindset that is destroying what is left of gay culture.

So he formed Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism in 1997,

...to expose the...myths, distortions and propaganda of modern gay activism...deconstruct the oppression and victimology politics...give a credible voice to happy, successful and independent gays and lesbians who don't wake up every day finding “hate, bigotry, and discrimination” under the bed and who don't go running to the courts, the governments or the human rights commissions for a lifetime of therapeutic preferences.

He went on to say:

Marriage is not an arbitrary convention and is not meant to change with the times. We're not talking about music, fashion or art. We're talking about an institution whose 4 prohibitions - you can only marry one person at a time, only someone of the opposite sex, never someone beneath a certain age, and not a close blood relative....

I would like to read on.

Unfortunately, most people's sense of history begins the day they were born, which means all that precedes is outmoded and irrelevant and all that follows is enlightened and progressive.

Pastor Daryl Olson of Outlook, Saskatchewan, said:

I am also fearful of what this legislation means for me as a member of the clergy. In Saskatchewan all marriages are performed by ministers of religion and justices of the peace. As a member of the clergy, will I be required to perform same-sex marriages against my conscience?

The Trans-Canada Alliance of German-Canadians also said:

You were democratically elected to the Canadian parliament with a majority of the votes, which includes also German-Canadian. The lesser number did not vote for you.

As the elected Member of Parliament you act for all on whatever is in their and Canada's best interest.

In a certain time you will face again your constituency. If you would like to be re-elected to the Canadian parliament -- you will work hard to receive the majority of votes again.

I have received many letters, and unfortunately I cannot read them all into the record. However, I would like to table the concerns of the marriage commissioners, the documents they have received this year in Saskatchewan, so that in history people can see how the language has been neutered in our institution of marriage, how they have had to take out of the marriage licences and the marriage documents the words “bride” and “bridegroom”. It is worth the documents being tabled to show how we have lost the language of the words “bride” and “bridegroom”.

Thank you.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Burlington actually gave me a great segue. This always has been and always will be about equality under the law.

Before I came to this place in 1993, I was asked to run as a member of Parliament for the Liberal Party of Canada. I made one condition on my running, which was that we amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to add sexual orientation as a prohibited ground for discrimination. I asked for that condition in writing.

I was here in this House in 1996 when that bill was first passed. Thus began the trip and the move toward equality for a minority group in our country that has been discriminated against from the beginning of time. Finally, in this last debate today, those in that group will see themselves fully and completely equal under the law, as in section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I feel so passionately about this issue because as a physician, I saw day after day in my practice gays, lesbians, transgendered and bisexual people who were subjected to discrimination under the law. When I met gay and lesbian couples who had been living together for 20 years and who could not even share their medical and dental plans or their pensions, and opposite sex couples who had been living together for a year in conjugal relationships were able to do that, I knew that this group was discriminated against under the law. I saw the effect of that discrimination in terms of mental and physical health on gays, lesbians and transgendered persons. I saw them live in fear. I saw professionals, teachers who were ashamed and afraid that people would know what their sexual orientation was because it meant that they could be fired from their jobs.

This for me is something that I have believed in since I was a practising physician, when I saw what that inequality could do to the health and well-being of Canadians. Today I stand here remembering that in 1996 with the passage of the amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act to add sexual orientation, it paved the way for benefits for same sex couples in terms of their medical and dental plans. In 2000 when the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act passed, 85 pieces of legislation in this country were amended in order to enshrine that equality in law. This is now the final barrier that is going to fall.

There is a lot of emotion about this issue and I can understand that. What we are talking about is tradition and very strongly held beliefs that have gone on over time. In fact we all know that it was in 2 BC that the Romans first developed the legal contract of marriage. It was a civil contract. It was only between the very wealthy landowning families in Rome who were allowed to make a contractual arrangement to transfer property and to ensure that the children of those contracts would be the rightful heirs to whatever property was handed down. We saw 100 years later, in the same Roman civil law, that in fact this contract was extended to same sex couples. This is not something that is new; this idea was there in 1 BC.

When we talk about the progression of marriage, we hear people talk a lot about the religious component of marriage. We are not talking here about the religious component of marriage. Under section 2 of the charter, religions are free to marry or to behave in a manner befitting their own dogma or whatever their religious beliefs. Those are minority rights given to people who belong to different religions in this country. We are extending minority rights under section 15 of the charter to a group that has been discriminated against under the law.

The fact is for a long time we felt that children were the result of a heterosexual relationship. Today we know that many heterosexual relationships that are infertile can also have children. Those children have come out of reproductive technologies that have been applied to infertile heterosexual couples to allow them to have children. We have never discriminated against those children. We have never discriminated against those infertile couples. They have still been allowed to marry.

Today we know that by using those same technologies, gay and lesbian couples can have children biologically. I know lesbian women who have gone full term and delivered a child just like any other woman.

The parents of those children need to be allowed to marry so the children can have legally married parents. Bill C-38 would ensure those children are equal, not second class citizens. The bill would ensure that a minority group will have equality under the law.

In a country like Canada, which is made up of diverse races, ethnicities, religions, languages, and colour, it is extremely important to ensure minorities are not crushed under majority rule. Minorities need to have a sense that they belong, that they are respected and that they are equal in every way under the law. The state should have no ability to discriminate in terms of its legal apparatus unless allowing people equality would harm society as a whole.

We know that heterosexual marriages will not suddenly end because same sex couples marry. We are just extending the legal ability for same sex couples to do the kinds of things that we all want to do when we love and are committed to each other. We want to ensure that in the eyes of society same sex couples are deemed to be equal and are living in a conjugal relationship that is secure and strong. We want to ensure that their friends and their community can celebrate with them.

The religious component of marriage only came about, if anyone had bothered to do the research, in the council of Trent in 1563 when marriage was solemnized as a religious institution. It has only been since then that we have had religious marriage.

Clause 2 and the amendments that were made by committee would ensure that religious organizations do not have to marry people if they do not wish to do so because of a couple's sexual orientation.

I was on the justice committee and we travelled across the country and discussed this issue. Many religions want to do this and many do not. Which religion is the state to agree with? Do we support one religion over all others or do we continue to allow religious organizations to be free to behave in a manner that they think is important when anyone tries to interfere in that religion's dogma or institution?

We are finally allowing same sex couples to be equal under the law to other people who live in a committed relationship. We are allowing them to sign a civil contract indicating that they can share property and have all the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual couples. The children of that relationship would have true equality under the law. Parents would be able to hand down property, as they did in the days of ancient Rome, to their legal and rightful heirs. People will have custody of those children and share that custody if the marriage should break down. This issue is all about the law.

In this country of diversity, it is important that we look to the rule of law. Today we know that almost 90% of Canadians who wish to be married can be married as same sex couples. We are denying that right to 10% just because of the province in which they happen to live. The federal government cannot allow that to happen. We are responsible for the definition of marriage. We cannot define it so that 10% of Canadians cannot participate by an accident of geography.

I support Bill C-38 which is about equality. Finally, gays and lesbians will be able to hold their heads up high and be full citizens within Canada.

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver Centre.

Bill C-38 has placed before Canadians an issue that is complex for some and for others it is incredibly simple. It is the ability of two people to commit to each other in marriage that is recognized by the state. Over the past few years I have had the opportunity to speak with many people across Canada and in my constituency of Burlington about the issues that Bill C-38 raises. I have read their letters and their emails. I have listened to the comments that they have made to me.

In the last election this issue was before us at every single one of the debates and there were nine. Without a doubt, some people do not like this legislation and yet others think of it as a logical extension of rights to a group of citizens who have for too long been denied equality. In many ways this debate reflects others that have taken place in this chamber, debates that extended the right of women to vote and to take their place in this chamber.

Today in eight provinces and one territory the law on civil marriage is that two people of the same gender or of opposite genders can marry. In each of these jurisdictions the courts have ruled that it is against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to deny same sex couples access to marriage in order to create a civil union and the Government of Canada agrees with that.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is one of the defining elements of Canadian society. Section 15 of the charter came into force 20 years ago. The inclusion of equality rights in the supreme law of our country was a significant milestone, one that put Canada at the forefront of nations committed to safeguarding human rights and protecting all our citizens' essential dignity.

Section 2 of the charter ensures the freedom for officials of religious institutions to perform marriages only in accordance with their religious beliefs. In supporting Bill C-38 I am fulfilling my legal and constitutional obligations to defend the rights of all Canadians. As I mentioned, section 2 protects religious freedoms as does this bill and that was important to me and to many Canadians. I will continue to defend the right of religious organizations to marry only those who pass their religion standard to qualify for marriage.

Over the past months I have been particularly impressed by the many constituents who have taken the time to ensure that their views were heard. It is always easier for people to call when they disagree with a policy and I have certainly heard from those people, especially when hate filled literature appeared at the doorstep. While I have heard from many constituents who disagree with the bill, I have been overwhelmed with messages of support for the bill from parents, grandparents, younger people, straight people and those who were not. I have been approached by people of faith, by Catholics, Anglicans, Muslims, Jews and members of the United Church.

Their message was that the government must do what is right for our community and our country. They believe their God would not want discrimination. They believe in equality and the people making their choice should be respected and accepted as equal before the law. They believe that Bill C-38 is a logical expression of our commitment as Canadians to equal treatment of all individuals as enshrined by the charter.

I would like to read from some of the messages that particularly touched me. This one is from the mother of two children. She said:

My family is strong. My Canada is accepting and does not permit or encourage hate-mongering. My Canada is one of tolerance, that welcomes everyone, that supports peace and harmony both at home and abroad.

I heard from other people who told me that they believe that the extension of marriage to same sex couples is good for Canadian society and children to the extent that stable, committed, loving couples and families are the foundation of strong communities and the ideal environment for raising children. We all benefit by including same sex couples among those who can choose the rights and responsibilities of marriage.

I heard from a minister of a church who said to me that marriage, as opposed to being a union of one man and one women, is instead an honouring of those who are engaged in lifelong, faithful, committed, faith filled relationships regardless of a couple's sexuality. He went on to thank me for showing strong leadership in the riding and across the country as we struggle with this issue.

I heard from constituents who told me that they are proud to live in a country that allows everyone to marry, that ensures that all forms of ignorance, prejudice and hate must be fought and fought hard. I heard from someone who said to me that they are sure that this bill must be supported because they believe that anything that promotes supportive and committed relationships between partners is a good thing.

I heard from people who got pamphlets on their doorstep telling them to call me and say they disagreed. They called me to say they agree. “I am very proud and thankful”, one woman wrote, “to have an MP who takes a stand for what they believe in and, most importantly, what I believe in”.

I heard from constituents who pointed out that they had been married for 35 years, have lived in my constituency for 10 years, are 57 and 58 years old. They wanted to write to thank me for supporting the same sex bill.

I heard from somebody who pointed out, “We elect our MPs. We entrust our MPs to protect minority rights, not simply to bow to the majority's sometimes uninformed and intolerant views. A society has never thrived by denying specific groups the rights that are granted to others. A healthy Canada will continue to move forward, instead of clinging to outdated and meaningless definitions”.

I heard from somebody who goes to the same church that I do, who wrote, “What would Jesus say if He was standing before two gay people? He would say 'I created you and I bless you, so live your lives with peace and love'. And thank you for being on this issue”.

I heard from others who were encouraged again by Catholic bishops to write and say that they disagreed. They wrote to say, “I believe in the separation of church and state. I agree with same sex legislation and that supporting it is the right choice. I civilly agree with the legislation and back it 100% in my belief that the rights of all concerned are being taken care of”.

These letters really did affect me as I read them. They reminded me of why we have the honour of being members of Parliament. We can come to a place like this, we can debate these issues passionately, but we can be respected and we can be treated as equals, as men and women, as people who care about issues deeply.

Bill C-38 represents all that we believe in as Canadians, that we believe in equality for everyone. It is a strong symbol of the core values that many Canadians, and I hope all members of this House, hold dear: equality, dignity, tolerance and respect for others.

Passing Bill C-38 will ensure that all Canadians can take their place in the rich tapestry that makes our country so great, that allows each of us to be the people who we are. It will allow people who wish to marry someone of the opposite sex to continue to do that. It will allow people who wish to have a same sex marriage respected by the government and in some cases by their church.

Bill C-38 is an important piece of legislation. I am proud to be able to stand in this House and support this bill on behalf of all my constituents.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to completely honest, I must admit that it is not a pleasure to take part in today's debate on Bill C-38 on civil marriage.

I get the feeling that, right from the very start, this has been a fruitless debate where everyone has stuck by their positions and refused to budge. Both sides have said some scandalous things. Not only has the debate been polarized, it has been controversial. Some people were subject to harsh remarks and an obvious lack of respect.

Today, I want to make my humble contribution, given my great surprise that the government is incapable of addressing the right to equality and, at the same time, respecting our identities as individuals. When I said that I supported maintaining the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, I also said, in the same breath, that I supported the union of same sex partners and their right to equality.

The challenge facing this House and its members, as legislators, was that, in maintaining the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, it was also our duty to find a way to pass legislation ensuring equality for same sex couples, so they could have access to a union recognizing their choices and rights. The quest for equality does not mean we have to standardize intrinsically different realities by creating just one type of union between individuals and using the same word to describe it.

Homosexuality exists. It is a reality and no one can explain it or even attempt to. First, it is complex; second, it would be politically incorrect to do so.

Love also exists between same sex partners, and their right to happiness, as far as I am concerned, is a given. We must understand that, according to the government, Bill C-38 seeks essentially to protect two equally fundamental values: the right to equality and freedom of religion.

In order to do this, the government took the easy way out by simply changing the traditional definition of marriage—which is the union of one man and one woman—to include all unions between two individuals. Was it the easy way or incompetency? Both, in all honesty. I believe that this government took the easy way out because it is incompetent and incapable of being bold and innovative.

The second fundamental value is protection of the right of religious organizations to refuse to marry partners of the same sex, which, according to the government, comes under freedom of religion.

As the government failed to assume its responsibilities, it appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. And the result? Essentially, the court concluded that the government had the right to authorize marriage between partners of the same sex, but that the court would not force it to do so, that it would not find that the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman was a bad thing in itself.

The court recognized that no one could guarantee that religious freedom would be protected against the rights of minorities and that Parliament could not do anything to guarantee religious freedom over the longer term either.

In conclusion, it was left to Parliament to decide. Today, we are experiencing its desire to present Bill C-38, which runs counter to the right of respect for the distinct identity of each kind of union between two people.

Obviously, in this debate, reference is made to the unions of persons of the opposite sex and of the same sex. We are talking, essentially, about sexual orientation, and therefore sex. Perhaps we should talk about it a little.

I would like to quote from Yvon Dallaire, an expert in the psychology of sex. I quote:

Although reasonable, human beings are still animals and, as such, subject to the laws of nature, whether aware of it or not. Thus, whether we want it or not, sexuality remains a strategy of nature to ensure the survival of the species. What we call love is another of these strategies to provide the best opportunity to raise our young. Love is a biological point of view serving sexuality—

And continuing the quote:

Love becomes so important in our species probably because we spend decades raising our children, while the young of most animal species become independent a few days, weeks or months after their birth. So, it is important for humanity that the male and female not only form a stable couple but share in the task of child rearing.

It is in this concept of the focus of life reaching out to life that society over the years has defined and confirmed the institution of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

First I tried to use a Cartesian approach in addressing this issue and to be as rational as possible. It is fair to say that men and women are fundamentally different, but happily complementary. Thus, a union between a man and woman is fundamentally different from a union between two members of the same sex. I admit, it is disarmingly simplistic.

Allow me to quote Krishna Deva, “The sexual union between a man and a woman expresses the cosmic dimension of creation...Therefore, sexual pleasure is a symbolic reflection of the infinite joy of the divinity of creation.”

It is important to mention that this statement does not make either union a second class union with respect to the other.

Based on this philosophy, it seems that each of the two unions has its own identity. To paraphrase Michel Gourges, a professor in Ottawa, I would say that the first problem is that in the name of equality rights, it seems necessary for the union between two persons of the same sex to be recognized in the same way as a union between a man and a woman.

Second, for the union between two persons of the same sex to be recognized in the same way as a union between a man and a woman, it seems that both identities need to be described the same way. If we continue in that same vein, then recognizing equality between men and women should necessarily require both to be identical.

Allow me again to quote a passage from a text by Richard Alexander, biologist at the University of Michigan, “Men and women are different on a variety of levels and much more so than we can imagine. To diminish and deny these differences is to diminish our nature and a vital aspect of our human heritage.”

As I said earlier, men and women are fundamentally different, but happily complementary.

The government's approach to this issue sacrifices the very identity of each of the unions.

The government could have achieved equality of the unions of individuals while maintaining respect for the very identity of each of the two unions: the union between a man and a woman, and the union between two persons of the same sex.

In conclusion, I want to say I too received countless positive and negative comments, and I want to share one of them that particularly caught my attention, “The time has come for you—he is talking to me—to realize that, as an MP, you must lead by example, and that voting against this bill is completely unacceptable for someone who wants Quebec to be independent and open to the world”.

It is no secret that I want Quebec to be sovereign. I want Quebec to have the right to equality with other countries, and I want the identity of Quebeckers to be respected. If I took the same approach to these two fundamental values that the government is using to resolve the issue of same sex unions, I would end up with the following absurdity: I would obtain equality rights but I would forfeit—for the benefit of the Canadian identity—my identity as a Quebecker, something I would consider unacceptable.

So, we must respect the right to equality and the right to our own identity.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Hochelaga on his speech, which was a very important addition to the debate on this bill.

With his usual modesty, he undersold his importance in the various aspects of the improvement in the human rights situation for gay and lesbian people over his many years of service in the House. He mentioned that he had been present in the House while many changes had been made. He very much underplayed his own part in making those changes happen. He has played an important part in ensuring that gay and lesbian people assume full citizenship here in Canada and in Quebec. I want to recognize the contribution he has made over his many years here and tell him how important it has been to all of us in the gay and lesbian community.

I also want to thank him for mentioning the contributions of my predecessor, Svend Robinson, to those debates and to his other colleagues from Quebec in the whole move toward full equality and full citizenship for gay and lesbian people.

It has been a cooperative effort by many people, but I do not want the member for Hochelaga to underestimate the importance he has brought to this debate in the House.

The member will remember from the committee hearings that we heard from the Canadian Psychological Association. One of the things the association said was that the stigma and isolation that gay and lesbian families may experience as a result of public and systemic prejudice and discrimination may cause distress and that was a far more important factor in the stability and the adjustment of children in those families than was the fact that their parents were gay and lesbian, which seemed to have no effect whatsoever on the children.

I wonder if he could comment on the importance of Bill C-38 in light of that assertion by the Canadian Psychological Association.

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Hochelaga for his very impassioned speech, as always. I want to take this opportunity to thank him for his work on the legislative committee on Bill C-38. The committee did not have an easy task, but I think it has been accomplished with serenity, thanks in large part to the member for Hochelaga, who was able to inject nice touches of humour throughout the deliberations.

That said, I would like to ask him two questions. Does he believe that the bill we will be called to vote on provides adequate protection to all religions, given all that we have heard during committee hearings and the concerns that have been voiced, with good reason, I would say. Some of these concerns were more subjective than objective, as the Supreme Court of Canada indicated. So, is the member satisfied with the amendments that were made?

I would also like him to comment on the remarks made yesterday by the leader of the Conservative Party about tonight's vote lacking legitimacy because of the support by Bloc Québécois members.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for this opportunity to speak once again on this subject, Bill C-38, which proposes that the traditional definition of marriage, that which traditionally exists between a man and a woman, be changed to classify marriage as the legal equivalent to a civil marriage, which may be between two men or two women.

The fact is the bill tries to accomplish in one fell swoop what most Canadians would have preferred to have seen their Parliament do in two separate acts, instead of combining marriage and civil union in Bill C-38 and calling it civil marriage. Canadians would have supported the creation of the architecture of civil union, accessible to all Canadians, and separately protect the sanctity and sacrament of marriage as blessed and protected by the faith communities. The government, however, for reasons previously presented, decided not to assert its statutory responsibility to reaffirm the traditional definition of marriage, appeal the decisions of the provincial courts, and then set out to construct a true civil union regime.

For these reasons, Parliament missed the opportunity to interpret and wisely apply the words of the Canadian Supreme Court in describing the Canadian Constitution as a living tree, and root that tree in those same traditional and fundamental values that would serve both religious freedom and modern civil society.

Because we failed to do that, that is, to bring together all of our collective wisdom and parliamentary capacity and construct a bill reflective of the will and the needs of all Canadians, we are now, through Bill C-38, setting the stage for pervasive and divisive change, which up to this point in the discussion has not been given nearly enough consideration.

Time allows me to focus only on two areas as illustrations of practice and institutions that will be profoundly affected by Bill C-38, these being adoption and the public education system.

In some provinces, children's protective services, after decades of advocacy, were judicially granted to faith communities. In Ontario, for example, there exists a public children's aid society, but also both Jewish and Catholic children's aid societies. In this jurisdiction, and I use this as an illustration, when the relevant society is approached through an application for adoption by a couple of the same sex who are married but are at odds with religious and traditional teaching, it will be the courts who will pronounce upon what once again will be a matter of human rights, a confrontation between that same, but we believe erroneously applied, concept of human rights, which is the basis for Bill C-38. This will conflict with traditional spiritual and religious practice and teaching.

The second area is usually referred to as preach and teach, which is more than just protecting the hard-won rights of certain faith communities to develop curriculum in church-affiliated schools consistent with religious and spiritual values. While this is absolutely essential and itself will probably come under judicial assault, we must also be aware that the public school system, presently supported by many faiths, will be faced with contradictory attitudes toward marriage and sex education, compared with values taught in the churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, and homes of this nation. What long-term impact will this have on the institution of public education, which has been a force of cohesiveness across our land?

In both examples, adoption and education, I believe members can see that at a time when more social cohesiveness is needed, Bill C-38 will be taking us in exactly the wrong direction, by weakening these traditional practices and institutions.

To conclude, at a time when the world sees in Canada an example of a caring, tolerant, and compassionate society, and when one reflects on the legacy of institutional strength that generations of Canadians have fought and laboured to build and preserve, on balance, Bill C-38 is just not good enough, either in substance or in the process we have followed in developing it.

The most appropriate course of action, then, would be to defeat this bill and to begin the task of designing and constructing a true civil union that would respect the dignity, tradition, and lifestyle choices of all Canadians, but none at the expense of the others. This has been and should be the Canadian way.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, because Bill C-38 is before the House and not the latest decision from the Supreme Court. I want to reiterate a couple of points.

On the issue of human rights, I know when this started. I suppose if I were to reflect back, the genesis of some of these things came when the Divorce Act was amended to provide no-fault divorce. All of a sudden we started to see the first pieces of the disrespect for the institution of marriage, the “I can get out of it”, and also the growth of common law relationships.

I remember watching a panel program on this. People were asked why they did not get married and why they were living common law. Ninety-nine per cent of the people said that it was easier to get out of, that there was no commitment.

At the time I wrote a monograph on strong families making a strong country. I tried to come up with a definition of true love or real love. It was something to the effect that true love was when we put the interests of others ahead of our own. Therefore marriage represents that commitment. It represents a true love. There is a weaker commitment in a common law relationship and between any two parties, I doubt that there is any commitment, which has nothing to add in terms of making Canada a stronger country.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for York South—Weston.

Bill C-38, the civil marriage act, seeks to change the definition of marriage from a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, to any two persons to the exclusion of all others. The difference is defining characteristics. The traditional definition of marriage has defining characteristics. The proposed definition of marriage appears not to have any defining characteristics whatsoever, which seems to be very odd.

Even this morning the justice minister in his speech continued to debate whether this was a matter of human rights and a matter of equality. There is still a debate. I think it is very clear to all members and to all the public now that if this were really a matter of human rights, then it would not be subject to a free vote. That is the issue. Human rights are not subject to a free vote.

With regard to the equality provisions of the charter, there are two substantive exceptions to that provision.

First, as we all know that section 33 of the charter, the notwithstanding clause, permits Parliament to continue to operate for up to five years.

The second broad exception is found in section 1 of the charter. It reads:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

What that really means is any of the rights and freedoms provided in the charter can be suspended or can be overridden if under a section 1 analysis, they determine that it is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

In fact, this case, with regard to whether the definition of marriage is constitutional, has come before the courts many times. This is much like the Quebec referendum question. We are going to keep asking the question, keep going back to the people and eventually it is going to pass and become law. There may not be a final answer. This is driven by the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has clearly laid out that it views the charter as a living tree. It changes. We change and, therefore, our interpretation of that changes.

We have to be very careful. Now the Supreme Court is telling us that, even though Parliament is supposed to make the laws and the court is supposed to interpret and apply those laws, the charter is a living tree and if the government does not act, it will act and change the law and the government will have to deal with it.

This is the challenge for us. The Supreme Court of Canada has given us a clear signal.

As I mentioned, for many years the question about whether the constitutionality of the definition of marriage has been challenged in the courts. In the last case, before the Halpern case which triggered all of this, the Attorney General of Canada argued that the objective of limiting marriage to opposite sex couples was sufficiently important to warrant infringing on the rights of same sex couples. The next point was that the purpose of marriage was to provide a societal structure for the procreation of children in order to perpetuate Canadian society. It was very clear. This was the Government of Canada. This was the position before the courts.

What happens when we have the Halpern case where, all of a sudden, the same details come out? In July 2002, Halpern v. Canada, the Ontario Supreme Court heard a case dealing with the constitutionality of the definition of marriage. This is what gives me the most problem. It is probably the reason why I am totally opposed to Bill C-38. It effectively discredited heterosexual marriage by citing the number of divorces and the existence of common law marriage.

This is something that had not changed overnight, not since the last Supreme Court decision. It just happened to be a different panel of the court, three persons on a panel. That was their view. It was not the decision of the Supreme Court.

The court went on. It also dismissed the importance of the ability to procreate, citing the availability of reproductive technologies, such as artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, surrogacy and adoption just to name a few.

By the failure of the court case, the arguments being made all of a sudden were challenging what happened in the B.C. court decision a year earlier. By looking at marriage and the distinctive characteristics of marriage, it tried to discredit them to the point that it might tip the balance in terms of a section 1 analysis. That is where it always has been a matter of a violation or an infringement on equality rights.

Under section 1 it was not so great because of the consequences. If we change the definition of marriage, look what it would do to the definition of family, look what it would do to the parent-child relationship, look at all the other risks that would come about, which I will deal with shortly.

In my view, the court case that has triggered all of this summarily dismisses the relevance of marriage to any aspect of social well-being of Canadians, which is one of the reasons why we are here. It is to protect the health and well-being of all Canadians, especially our children.

Let me paraphrase Justice Robert Blair on assessing that court decision. He warned that the legal redefinition of marriage would not be an incremental change, but a profound one, with extremely complex consequences. These include touching the core of many people's beliefs and value systems, resulting in social, political, cultural, emotional, and legal ramifications. This is very ominous, and I think it is a caution and maybe more strongly a severe warning to legislators.

Daniel Cere of McGill University also talked about the impact on children. He raises a point that members have not talked about very much. Under the bill, the biological concept of parent will be replaced by a legal parent. This is very important because all of a sudden the role of biological parents is coming under question. I totally disagree.

I want to conclude by talking about marriage. This is all about that. Marriage promotes the bonding of men and women and the creation of stable and durable partnerships for life and property. It recognizes the interdependence of men and women. It embodies the spiritual, social, economic and contractual dimensions. It reflects a commitment to fidelity and monogamy.

Marriage serves as an optimal societal structure for the birthing and rearing of children, at least to the extent necessary for the perpetuation of society. It provides for mutual support between men and women. It supports the birthright of children. Marriage promotes bonding between men, women and children. It guides the transformation of children into young men and women who are readying themselves for marriage and to begin a new cycle. Marriage grows the family tree and develops broad supports and securities for all members.

These are the distinctive characteristics of the definition of marriage being one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

The potential change to the parent-child bond will have a profound effect on society. I believe that but I do not know because we will not know until it happens. There are also clear possible effects on religious rights as we know. Paragraph 60 of the Supreme Court reference decision says:

Returning to the question before us, the Court is of the opinion that, absent unique circumstances with respect to which we will not speculate, the guarantee of religious freedom in s. 2(a) of the Charter is broad enough to protect religious officials...

This involves the living tree issue. Today we do not know of any, but based on what has happened so far, there will be a challenge to religious rights and freedoms.

I believe the redefinition constitutes a radical societal change. It may not have immediate societal consequences, but over time it may have, and I stress may have enormous implications. This is not just about the infringement on the rights of gays and lesbians. It is also about diminishing the relevance of the most important societal institution, and that is marriage. In my opinion, the potential for material and adverse 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.

With all due respect to the House, my view is that Bill C-38 should not proceed and that the notwithstanding clause under section 33 of the charter should be invoked to provide Parliament with the time it needs to make a fully informed decision.

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

Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing today is the heavy-handedness of a Liberal government that is afraid of honest debate on this issue. The government is afraid to hear speeches like the one made by my hon. colleague because the government knows that the vast majority of Canadians are opposed to its radical position on marriage.

Because of the Liberals' fear of healthy debate on this issue, they have invoked closure, one of the most undemocratic things that has ever happened in this Parliament. The government extended the sittings of the House, tinkered with the Standing Orders and the legislative calendar, and then immediately afterward invoked closure to cut off debate on Bill C-38.

Does the hon. member think these are the actions of a Prime Minister who is going to slay the democratic deficit?

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington for his very interesting speech. Since I know he is a great democrat, from my time with him on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I would like to know if he agrees with his leader that, thanks to the Bloc's support, this evening's vote on Bill C-38 will lack legitimacy. I want him to comment on this.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

Let me start by indicating that I will be voting against the bill at third reading. I will be doing so because I consulted with my constituents, using a householder that contained a mail in ballot, in which constituents were asked the following question, “Should your member of parliament vote for the civil marriage act?”

We received back a total of 9,176 responses, with 7,321 advising me to vote against the bill, 1,814 advising me to vote for the bill and a further 41 ballots which were either spoiled or invalid. Therefore, my mandate is clear. My constituents want me to vote against this bill and I will respect their wish. However, speaking frankly, I am relieved that I was not asked to vote for this bill since I have grave concerns as to the implications of the civil marriage act for religious freedom in Canada.

Defence of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience has been one of the hallmarks of my own political career. My very first speech in the House of Commons in 2001 was in defence of the freedom of conscience of Falun Gong practitioners who had been persecuted in China.

In 2002 I offered a resolution, which was adopted unanimously by the House, in favour of freeing 13 Falun Gong practitioners who had ties to Canada and who had been imprisoned in China for expressing freedom of conscience. Some of those individuals are in our country today as free individuals because Parliament took a stand at that time in favour of freedom of religion and conscience.

My loyalty to this foundational principle goes beyond the defence of any one group. I have spoken out in protest against the oppression of Tibetan Buddhists and of both Buddhists and Christians in Vietnam.

One of the reasons I broke with my party to vote against the Anti-terrorism Act in 2001 was because that law effectively criminalized certain kinds of religious beliefs in certain kinds of situations, a feature that at least in theory could lead to the oppression of religious groups, most notably and obviously a danger that existed with Canadian Muslims.

When I say that I am very worried by the absence in Bill C-38 of protections for freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, I hope hon. members will understand how serious this matter is to me.

I am not unique of course in having such concerns. I will read from an article that Father Raymond de Souza, the well-known columnist, published in the journal First Things last year. He wrote, regarding the draft same sex marriage law then before the Supreme Court:

[It is likely to erode] religious liberty on questions related to marriage. First it will be churches forced to rent out their halls and basements for a same-sex couple’s wedding reception. Then it will be religious charities forced to recognize employees in same-sex relationships as legally married. Then it will be religious schools not being allowed to fire a teacher in a same-sex marriage. Then it will be a hierarchical or synodal church not being allowed to discipline an errant priest or minister who performs a civilly legal but canonically illicit same-sex marriage. All of this can happen short of the worst-case scenario specifically exempted in the federal government’s proposed law.

If Father de Souza's concerns seem a bit over the top to some hon. members, let me demonstrate that these concerns are, if anything, understated.

I will demonstrate this by giving a real life example of just how far Canada's courts have already gone to restrict or roll back the protection given to freedom of religion and freedom of conscience and the protection given to those rights under section 2 of the charter when this protection has come into conflict with the currently fashionable but constitutionally unjustifiable, highly aggressive reading of the charter's equality of rights section, section 15.

I refer to the Scott Brockie case, although there are other cases before this nation's courts that I could cite as equally effective illustrations.

In April 1996, Scott Brockie and his family's Toronto printing business, Imaging Excellence, were approached with an order for letterhead, envelopes and business cards for the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives. Mr. Brockie, who is a Christian, refused to accept the order as it contravened his religious conscience to assist an organization's activities that directly promoted homosexuality, which he believed to be a sin.

Two months later, a representative from the Archives filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, asserting that Mr. Brockie had denied the individual commercial services based on the man's sexual orientation.

In September 1999, Mr. Brockie and Imaging Excellence were found guilty of what was called discriminatory conduct. He was forced to pay a penalty to the Archives of $5,000 and to provide the printing services he had originally refused; in other words, to perform an act that he regarded as being unethical or immoral.

All of this occurred despite the fact that Mr. Brockie was able to demonstrate in court that he had provided printing services to homosexuals in the past and that his objection was to the policy objectives of the organization seeking the use of his services rather than to the sexual orientation of the representative who approached him.

Later, the Ontario Supreme Court rejected Mr. Brockie's request to overturn the decision. The Superior Court had initially awarded Mr. Brockie $25,000 in costs, a decision that the Human Rights Commission and the archives successfully appealed to the Court of Appeals. As a result, Mr. Brockie must now foot a legal bill of $40,000.

In upholding the initial decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Ontario Superior Court engaged a logic that, if fully applied, would mean that freedom of conscience has no meaning under Canadian law, except that with which it is endowed by judges who more often than not will not share the religious or ethical beliefs of those upon whose right to act according to conscience they are ruling.

The court started in paragraph 51 of its ruling by citing with approval an earlier case in which the Supreme Court of Canada had “expressed some of the elements of freedom of religion and necessary limits on it”, that is, freedom of religion. It went on to state:

The further [a given] activity is from the core elements of the freedom, the more likely the activity is to impact on others and the less deserving the activity is of protection. Service of the public in a commercial activity must be considered at the periphery of activities protected by freedom of religion.

The court went on to say, “Mr. Brockie's exercise of his right of freedom of religion in the commercial marketplace is, at best, at the fringes of that right”. It then made an argument in paragraph 56 of its decision that deserves to be quoted at length:

If any particular printing project ordered [of] Mr. Brockie...contained material that conveyed a message proselytizing and promoting the gay and lesbian lifestyle or ridiculing his religious beliefs, such material might reasonably be held to be in direct conflict with the core elements of Mr. Brockie's religious beliefs. On the other hand, if the particular printing object contained a directory of goods and services that might be of interest to the gay and lesbian community, that material might reasonably be held not to be in direct conflict with the core elements of Mr. Brockie's religious beliefs.

Let me start by making the obvious observation of the astounding arrogance of this claim. How can the court know what Mr. Brockie's core religious beliefs are? How can it determine what is core and fundamental to his conscience? When he says certain things are core to his beliefs, how can the court say that no, they are not, that he misunderstands what his own beliefs are and the court will dictate them to him?

There are so many examples from history of this. Let me cite just one example where something that appeared peripheral was actually core to people's beliefs.

I studied Russian history. In the 1600s, in an attempt to modernize the Orthodox church, the czar of Russia instructed that certain changes would occur. For example, the manner in which the sign of the cross was made would be done using three fingers instead of two and certain other apparently limited rationalizations took place. The so-called old believers, and there were hundreds of thousands of them, maybe millions in Russia, were so distressed by these changes they fought them. Sometimes it cost them their lives. Whole congregations allowed themselves, for example, to be burned alive rather than to change to the new rationalizations.

These may seem like peripheral beliefs and practices, but they were not peripheral in the minds of the old believers. I would argue that it is arrogant to assume that any court has the capacity to reach into the minds of other people to determine what is core to their belief systems.

This is as outlandish as the court determining that a Buddhist has no right not to print menus for a restaurant that serves meat. It is as ridiculous as instructing a Muslim that he has no right not to allow the Gideon Bible to be placed on bedside tables in a motel he runs. It is as inappropriate as saying that it is not against the core belief of a Mennonite to refuse to print a pamphlet promoting a war. This is simply inappropriate and arrogant action on the part of the courts. Unfortunately, it is something that could get worse and indeed is likely to get worse under the direction that the government is going.

Kevin Bourassa who runs the website equalmarriage.ca has publicly stated the following warning to religious officials who disagree with his viewpoint. Mr. Bourassa, of course, is in favour of same sex marriage. He stated:

If you are at the public trough, if you are collecting taxpayers' money, you should be following taxpayers' laws. And that means adhering to the Charter....We have no problem with the Catholic Church or any other faith group promoting bigotry.

By that he means opposition to same sex marriage.

We have a problem with the Canadian government funding that bigotry.

In other words, we have a problem with the Catholic church being able to have charitable status but not with the Unitarian church.

I myself am a Unitarian and was raised as a Unitarian, as part of a church that supports same sex marriage. I do not think it is my right to dictate that the Catholic church or any other institution which says that same sex marriage is not moral should be deprived of its equality and its right to speak freely and proselytize its views, any more than I happen to think that the Catholic church should be restricted from saying that divorced persons, like myself, cannot get married in a Catholic ceremony. It is not my right; it is not the right of any person to dictate what some other person's core beliefs are and to say that that person does not have the right to express those beliefs I dictate as being non-core.

This is protection that is completely absent not merely from Bill C-38, but from the entire legislative agenda of the government. It could be central to its agenda, but it is not. I regret that very much. I urge every member of this House to vote against this bill and in favour of protection of freedom of religion and conscience in Canada.

[John Cummins, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to put words in my friend's mouth, but in his discussion he suggested that perhaps the fault here lay with the courts. Stanley Hartt, in a presentation before the parliamentary committee studying the legislation, stated that Bill C-38 had provoked divisiveness because it was based on:

--an unsustainable claim that the government is acting out of a constitutional imperative to alter the traditional definition of marriage... because this is the only way to accommodate their equality rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Mr. Hartt stated, “ I see this claim as unsustainable, because I don't believe it's true”. He noted that when the charter equality challenges were heard in the lower court, the court only had the option of either rejecting the claim or offering them marriage. However, when the Supreme Court was expressly asked in question four in the same sex marriage reference, “Is the opposite sex requirement for marriage for civil purposes consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms”, Mr. Hart noted that the Supreme Court declined to answer the question.

Is it then not so much the fault of the courts, but the fault of the government for failing to adequately pursue this issue and to adequately defend the traditional definition of marriage?

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

There you go, Mr. Speaker. We are the crooks, according to the Conservative Party.

In any event, I will start with the big picture. Canadians are quite divided on this issue, as is Parliament and every caucus representing a party in the House. I suppose it ought to be that way because that is the way it is with Canadians.

From the very beginning the Prime Minister accorded our members a free vote on this issue. I know the opposition has said that it is not a free vote, that cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries do not have a free vote, but that simply is not true. Cabinet ministers do not have a free vote. They will vote as a government. However all the parliamentary secretaries do have a free vote, save one, and that is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.

I am very comfortable with my Liberal Party being where it is on this issue with the two line whip structure. I think it is serving the House and Canadians well.

The first major item I want to deal with today has to do with the amendment that was made at committee, which is described as clause 3.1. The amendment has not had a lot of discussion in the House because it was actually crafted and inserted into the bill at committee stage but I think it is a rather significant amendment. I will read it to the House:

For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.

Those are a lot of words but what the clause actually does is it codifies in the statute the widest possible berth we could have constructed on a general basis for those who, for religious or freedom of expression reasons, are not supportive of, nor advocates of, same sex marriage.

What we have here, structurally, is a clash between charter based equality rights and, on the other hand, religious freedoms and freedom of expression. On the issue of civil marriage, those two sets of values clashed and we as a Parliament needed to assist in drawing the boundary lines.

Many people have said that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides freedom of religion and freedom of expression, that it is good for everybody and that it is there if it is needed to defend oneself. While that is true, it just so happens that the ordinary citizen does not walk around with a copy of the charter in his or her back pocket. Those rights and freedoms in the Constitution are usually pretty general based.

I am one of those who believe that if we are going to legislate in an area that manifests the clash of those spheres of interest, equality versus religious freedom, then we have to provide to the citizen something on the shelf that he or she can refer to in a statute, and we have done it.

However there are those who say that we should not be putting that in a statute because it tends to entrench on other provincial jurisdictions. I am one of those who say that if we can legislate on the subject, if we can refer to the charter, which is a federal instrument in the Constitution that is there for all Canadians, then surely when we enact legislation to protect the spheres of interests we can place a provision on the shelf as part of the hardware and software to which the citizen has access. I mentioned them earlier, the charter based equality provisions versus religious freedoms.

We have to note that the Holy Bible and the Holy Quran are just two of many religious writings, and other religious writings have done the same thing, which comment on or even prescribe same sex relationships.

In our modern world those relationships do exist but, at the same time, many Canadians say that the religious writings on which they manage and govern their lives have provisions in which they believe and to which they subscribe, which prevent them from looking in any other way at same sex unions. Recognizing that, we have constructed in clause 3.1 a reasonable berth for those views.

I will be voting against the bill even though I have tried to make the legislation better and played a small role in developing clause 3.1. What if Bill C-38 does not pass during the final vote this evening? If it does not pass, we would be left with an existing status quo, where eight out of ten provinces through their courts have recognized the legality of same sex marriages and those marriages are taking place now. We also would be faced with the scenario where we have to regularize what is out there unless we are simply going to let the courts carry on legislating for us for ever and ever.

We would then have to either deconstruct what has been put in place by the courts, which we could do in part, or we would have to find some other way to reconstruct and re-legislate.

I wish we could have gone back and completed the work of the justice committee, made a proposal to the House and attempted some legislation. Who knows where it would have ended up, in a way, without the pre-emptive strike of the Ontario Court of Appeal, which I regard as a very unfortunate day for parliamentary procedures and functions. I know there are those in the House who believe it was a great day for human rights, for equality rights, but we would have to go back and reconstruct. I am not saying that we could not do it but it would be very difficult to do given that we have had a year or more of same sex marriages taking place and those people are legally married.

It was unfortunate the way in which the courts did this. I am not saying that they are always wrong in the law. I am just saying that the way the courts have done it has pre-empted the legislative work of Parliament and placed us in a very difficult position.

There is no sense in me getting out my guns on the courts. I can do it freely here. I have the freedom under the Constitution to say whatever I want and I can bad mouth the courts and say that they ought not to have done it, that it really was a matter for Parliament and legislatures and not for the courts, but they saw the opportunity and they stole it. They swiped it right off the legislative desk of this Parliament. They knew the justice committee was working on this matter. They knew the House had referred it to the justice committee and yet they felt the need to strike down a provision and read in new law.

I think the rationale was that the courts made the law in the first place in 1868, in the case of Hyde v. Hyde, and if they could make the law 130 years ago, then they can make the law now. They are wrong. The world has changed and we do not have a system of elites making decisions for people now. We do it in parliaments and legislatures. There are a whole lot of reasons I could give as to why the courts should not do it.

Maybe this is an area we have to work on as a country and as a Parliament. I am not saying we have to discipline the courts, but we need to have some kind of an understanding about what the courts do and what Parliament does.

I will not try to rewrite history now, but that is one of the reasons I cannot support this because I do not think we should be here now, and I fault the courts for that. I do understand everyone's position, but I will be vote against the bill for all of the usual reasons related to the views of my constituents.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I generally do not compliment members of the government but I will say that the member's speech was actually thoughtful and fairly representative of his constituents. He seems to honestly believe in the position he has come to.

I want to make a couple of general points. First, I want to make this point again to see what the hon. member thinks of it. Not all members of the House who wish to speak to Bill C-38 at third reading will be allowed to speak to it because of the closure. With such an important piece of legislation that affects so many Canadians and is crossing party lines in many different directions, I wonder why the hon. member feels each member should not have been treated in many ways as an independent to be allowed to speak out. I would like his comments on that.

I have a second point that I would be interested in hearing his comments on. When the Minister of Justice gave his speech this morning he seemed extremely adamant that the notwithstanding clause portion of the Charter of Rights should never be used. During questions and comments I noted to him that the Prime Minister had said that there were situations in which he would use the notwithstanding clause. I asked about previous incidents in the province of Quebec where the Quebec government used it for language rights and so forth.

I also noted that when the Constitution was ratified the premier of my province was a New Democrat, Mr. Allan Blakeney. He was an emphatic backer of the notwithstanding clause for things such as his future. He seems to have been fairly wise in seeing into the future and being concerned about the health care ruling that came down from the Supreme Court that medicare may be against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Does the hon. member see any circumstance where the notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be used? Does he agree with the Prime Minister that perhaps it may be the only way to reverse that? Does he see the notwithstanding clause as ever being potentially useful?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Scarborough—Rouge River.

It is an honour to be here on this historic day when Parliament will affirm the equality rights and religious freedoms that were first conveyed to us when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms became part of the Canadian Constitution.

Everyone in Parliament and across Canada understands the very deeply held and passionate views on this issue among Canadians. No member of Parliament would ever suggest that their constituents were not split or that people did not feel very passionate on both sides of this issue.

It is incumbent upon all of us to respect the rights of each member of Parliament and of each Canadian to have different views on this very sensitive and heartfelt issue.

I will try to give a balanced reflection of some of the comments from my constituents. I will read some excerpts from some of the emails and letters I received from my constituents with views on both sides of the issue, so they know they have been treated fairly, they have been heard, and they have passed their feelings on to Parliament.

Jennifer Williams and Paul Gort wrote:

As constituents we are writing to let you know of our support for the government's proposed same sex marriage act and to urge you and your colleagues to take action to ensure this important bill is passed before the House adjourns for the summer. The right to marry is a fundamental human right and as such is deeply connected with our Canadian identity and sense of justice. How can we as Canadians deem to judge other nations if we fail to uphold the most basic of human rights at home?

Lana Wickstrom wrote:

Courts across Canada consistently and repeatedly found excluding gays and lesbians from civil marriage to violate the charter because the exclusion is discriminatory and without reasonable justification. Some argue marriage has always excluded same sex couples. However, just because a discriminatory practice has been in place for a long time does not make it acceptable. Women were denied the right to vote for centuries. Discrimination was not fair then and it is not fair now.

Given that same sex marriages have been allowed in eight provinces and in Yukon Territory, Claude Chabot wrote:

I can't say I've noticed Yukon society falling apart after our experience with same sex marriage over the past few months.

Kevin Greenshields wrote:

The United Nations Commission on Human Rights has upheld traditional marriage on an international case from New Zealand in 2002. Even countries like the United Kingdom, France, Denmark and Sweden have upheld the traditional definition of marriage.

Don Green said, “--marriage is part of what defines a Christian”. Ruth Dueck said, “--social experiment that would intentionally deprive children of a mother or father”. Carol Horne wrote:

Furthermore, it would appear that the government is abdicating the responsibilities of Parliament, allowing an unelected and unaccountable judiciary to set the agenda and to carry out drastic social re-engineering of an essential human institution.

The Right Reverend Terrance Buckle, the Anglican Bishop of Yukon, wrote:

This proposed legislative action by the Government of Canada stands in opposition to the faith teachings of many in Canada and not only Christians, as I am certain you are aware.

Stan Marinoske wrote:

One of the major social systems which has been the cornerstone of our society is that of the family. The traditional family unit has been under attack from all sides. This will be another huge nail in the coffin which will eventually bury the family as we know it.

Harry McKenzie wrote a very deep felt letter ending with, “You have a chance here to protect our community and its members rather than push for their potential abuse and victimization”.

I received a number of form letters. A card from Don Duriez stated that marriage assures the survival of society by creating the next generation. Dianne Tate said, “Marriage is a vital social institution and is the foundation on which a strong, dynamic society is built”. Finally, Kim Runions said, “Will you also vote one day in support of marrying one man and one beast or maybe a father and his daughter?”

I want to assure my constituents that I read all their emails and letters, and I have reflected a number of them, on both sides of the issue, fairly in the House of Commons today.

I want to comment on that last one because it has come up a number of times in the House and in debate that it might lead to polygamy, incest or marrying animals. I want to assure the House that this is obviously not true. The difference is quite clear. We in Parliament are saying to all Canadians that they cannot marry beasts, have incest or polygamy. We are treating all Canadians equally by saying they cannot do that

The reason that same sex marriages are allowed now in Canada is that it is an equality right. It is treating all Canadians equally and allowing all Canadians to do that, just as we are not allowing all Canadians to participate in those other activities.

I would like to outline more of the facts related to this situation for those Canadians who may not quite clearly understand the situation related to this law, so there are no misunderstandings.

I wish to make it clear that this is just civil marriages. If anyone is worrying about their traditional religious marriages, the law will carry on exactly as it has always been. We are only speaking of civil marriage.

The case in Canada today is that the highest law in the land created by Parliament, the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, has been interpreted to say that same sex marriages are legal. Whether or not the law passes, same sex marriages are now legal and they will continue to be legal in Canada.

Unfortunately, this has left us in a situation where there are two provinces and two territories where it has not been through the courts yet. Obviously, it will eventually get there, but in a sense we have two classes of citizens. That is why it is important to deal with this law. In fact, we will be finishing it this evening, so that we do not have different classes of citizens in Canada. I am sure all parliamentarians would agree with that.

Another fact that people should be made aware of is that this has nothing to do with benefits like pensions or other employee benefits for same sex couples. They already have these benefits through other laws which have been dealt with. It also has nothing to do with the right to adopt children. Same sex couples already have these rights as well through other laws.

The only thing that we are dealing with here is that same sex couples have equal rights to use the word “marriage” to define their civil unions.

Given that we have this situation, that same sex marriages are now legal in Canada, it is very important to note that all parties in the House of Commons have said that they will not change the Constitution to deny this equality right or to deny same sex civil unions. They will not use the notwithstanding clause. Then why do we need this bill? It is over and above, as I said earlier, to ensure that persons in the other two provinces and two territories are treated equally.

The other major objective of the bill is to reaffirm the protection of religious freedoms in the Constitution. Churches that do not want to perform same sex marriages should not have to. One of the important elements of the bill is to protect religious freedoms and two more elements have been added to the bill to enhance the religious freedoms aspect. I congratulate the committee and the House for doing that.

In summary, that is what the bill is all about. It reaffirms two rights that are in the Canadian Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, namely the equality rights and the right to religious freedom.

Canada is a nation of minorities. We are all part of some minority. If we do not protect all minorities, we cannot protect any minority. If we do not protect all minorities, we cannot protect people of colour, Anglicans, Catholics, Muslims, people of different genders, and people of different races or nationalities. We could not protect any Canadians because each and every one of us is part of some minority.

Parliamentarians in a previous Parliament have issued a great challenge for us by creating a charter with some overlapping rights, equality rights and the right of religious freedom. Balancing these is what Bill C-38 would put into law with a very good framework. Our challenge as parliamentarians is to do our level best to find that balance in these two rights for the fairness of all.

I have never had one Canadian suggest to me that all Canadians should not be treated equally. I stand by them, and the freedoms and rights of all Canadians.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am very privileged and delighted to have an opportunity to speak briefly to this very important bill, Bill C-38, on this very historic occasion, because what we are about to do is pass a piece of legislation that has been many decades in the making here in Canada.

Many have spoken very eloquently about the evolution of human rights in our society. There is no question that over the years, the decades and the centuries we have evolved toward a more civilized, more compassionate and more just concept of the rights of people in our society, and really, justice is what is at the root of what we are talking about. Not only do the rights of people in our society have to be acknowledged and recognized, but they also have to be reflected in the laws of the nation and they have to be upheld. In other words, rights are of no consequence if there is not a way to protect people and ensure the enforcement of those rights.

Let me say this for those who would ask why we need legislation to protect equal marriage, who would say that we have managed without it forever and ask why we need it now, and who would ask if it is not some kind of trendy notion. Let me simply say that even though it is in recent years only that we have moved to assert full equality for gays and lesbians in our society as it relates to the right to full and equal marriage, we must recognize that the lack of this right, the lack of this respect and the lack of this sanctioning have haunted and bedevilled people whose right to that social recognition has been denied throughout the centuries.

Let us today celebrate the fact that we have recognized that there has been harm, hurt and frustration and that there has been a denial of this full exercising of the right to marriage to gays and lesbians in our society. Some people say they have gay friends or lesbian friends who do not want to get married and they ask what the big deal is. We all have friends who are gay and lesbian or who are straight who opt not to get married, and that will continue to be the case, but what is absolutely unacceptable in our society is the fact that no Canadian should be denied the right to equal marriage on the basis of sexual orientation. We are about to change that and it is something to celebrate,

I have heard some members in the House, not exclusively in the neanderthal corner of the Conservative Party but also alarmingly frequently in the backbenches of the governing party as well, ask why we have to call it marriage. Why? Because that is the recognized sanctioning in the law of a relationship that exists between two people and has meaning. It has emotional meaning and it also has legal meaning.

As for those who argue that they are for it up to a point but to call it marriage just does some kind of terrible damage to the institution of marriage, I have to say in all honesty that I have struggled to understand why this is a problem for people. I do not understand what it is that causes someone to say,“I feel my marriage is somehow going to be diminished if the marriage between two other people is allowed to take place on an equal basis between two people of the same sex”.

When I hear those arguments, I have to say that I am really genuinely puzzled that there could actually be people, thinking people, people with a sense of fairness and justice in our society, who would want to take the position that any other person, regardless of sexual orientation, should be denied access to the very marriage that these people say is so very important to them.

If marriage is such an important element of our society, why would they not be in favour of greater inclusion and more marriages? What we are talking about is a commitment undertaken between two adults to say that they want their obligations and their rights to be codified, institutionalized and fully recognized. Does that not broaden the circle of marriage? Does that not broaden the institution to the point where, if one really believes that this is a foundation in our society, more of it should be a good thing?

I do not want to spend my remaining moments arguing with members who take the opposite point of view. Sometimes I feel almost literally physically sick at my own welling up of intolerance. I do not like that feeling, because this is supposed to be about tolerance, inclusion and acceptance.

However, I will admit that I feel a certain welling up of intolerance when I hear the insensitivity that is displayed by those who say they have no problem denying equal access to marriage to people on the basis of their sexual orientation. These same people very often say they are in favour of protecting gays and lesbians from being discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Let me say, however, that for some people it is the ultimate form of discrimination to say that they cannot enjoy the full benefits and full access to being married to the persons they love, as other people in this society enjoy.

I want to take a moment or two to pay tribute. I do have not time to pay tribute to a vast number of people, but we did not reach this point in this debate, in piloting this legislation through here today at this historic moment, without a great many people having contributed to and engaged in the struggle to bring us to this point.

It would really be an omission on this occasion not to recognize the very early and courageous work done by the former member for Burnaby--Douglas. I want to share a brief and actually quite humorous anecdote. Some 20 years ago, the former member for Burnaby--Douglas, and some of my colleagues may know the exact date, held a press conference on Parliament Hill to openly declare, as a parliamentarian, that he was gay. A dear friend of mine from British Columbia, a mutual friend of his, was visiting in Nova Scotia. Her name is Rosemary Brown. Many will know that she is a hero to many of us. She said, “I don't know why Svend Robinson needs to hold a press conference to declare he's gay. That's like me holding a press conference to declare I'm black. It seems quite obvious. Everybody knows it”.

Underlying that slightly humorous discussion was the recognition that some of the worst forms of discrimination and some of the worst kind of hate-mongering take place when it cannot be fully recognized that it is happening. That is why we have laws to say that we cannot discriminate against people just because we do not like whatever their characteristics or attributes may be.

I have had an avalanche of letters and emails from people in my own riding and across the country. I wish I had time to write a book and someday share them with people. I know that we all have had those kinds of letters.

I have also benefited from information that has been shared. I want to mention this briefly in wrapping up. Regarding the place of churches in the same sex marriage debate, there are a few things members may not have heard. There is an outstanding paper by the head of the Department of Religious Studies at Queen's University, Pamela Dickey Young, and I commend it to people.

Finally, I want to quote from the very fine speech from the current member for Burnaby--Douglas, who stated in this debate that:

When it comes down to it, there is no difference in the love experienced by gay and lesbian couples and heterosexual couples. Love is love is love.

The bill is a cause for celebration. Soon, when it finally passes, we will be able to celebrate the love and commitment of all Canadian couples. The circle of love, of responsibility, of commitment, of marriage will be wider.

We will all be the richer for it.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I lost count of how many times the member erred in his statements. No one is trying to create different categories. That is rhetoric and it is misleading. It is a shame that the member continued to use punchy words to mislead the Canadian public. There is no different categorization.

I believe everybody in the House recognizes the truly loving relationships of homosexual couples. I do not think that is the issue. My concern is that the love I have for my wife has not been improved or decreased because of a word or a piece of paper. That leads to my first question. How does the member feel this word, going on the previous member's question, is going to alter anything, and how does not having Bill C-38 decrease the love of these relationships?

The second question is very brief. Given the truth that the Bloc party only has an interest in Quebec and has absolutely no interest in the furtherance of Canada, and given the second truth that the Liberals have made a deal with the Bloc to push this bill through, in terms of truthful debate, how is that democracy?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to Bill C-38. It is an honour for me to be splitting my time with the member for Halifax.

Today is a historic moment in Canadian history. We will be breaking new ground in a country that has individual civil liberties and rights at its forefront, and which are contained in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Constitution. We will be reaffirming our commitment to those rights today.

The member for Halifax is an interesting case study of a changing society and rights and freedoms. The member for Halifax was a trailblazer for women's issues. Back in 1980 she was elected to her provincial legislature as the first female leader in this country. This country has benefited in the last 25 years since her election because women have become more involved in municipal, provincial and federal politics. Women have not yet reached their full representation in our society in terms of business, industry, or politics. However, the steps that have been taken have benefited Canadians. My colleague from Halifax needs to be commended on this historic day for Canadians.

I want to talk a bit about Bill C-38 in terms of what it means aside from the issue of whether or not we should support it. I and my party will be supporting this legislation for a couple of reasons.

The first and foremost reason is the fact that it involves an issue relating to freedoms and rights. We in the NDP believe it is very important to protect these freedoms and rights for all members of society. The courts have done through the back door what we in Parliament should have done through the front door. The courts have acknowledged that gay and lesbian couples deserve the right to be unified in marriage by those religious institutions that choose to do so.

It is important to note that any religious organizations that feel it is not within their practice or faith to perform civil marriages do have the right to have their traditions reaffirmed, defined and protected. They need to be masters of their own domain. Their own congregations need to decide for themselves what is in the best interests of their members. It should not be left up to the government to decide.

At the same time, there are those religious institutions that want to perform same sex marriages and have expressed this right to their members. They have had this debate and their congregations want gay and lesbian couples to celebrate their love in a similar fashion as heterosexual couples.

What happens in the nine provinces and the one territory that has passed this legislation if we do not pass Bill C-38 in this place? Nothing will change. We will then be denying rights to these jurisdictions in Canada.

Since the Ontario court ruling in 2002 we have witnessed thousands of couples getting married across this country. They have expressed their feelings in a way that is open and inclusive, and one that they feel is healthy for themselves. How do we undo that?

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the people in my community who came forward to discuss this issue, whether they were opposed to it or in favour of it. One of the most interesting conversations that I will always remember was with a young man who had been adopted by two women who were married. He did not have a family before this relationship. His family wants to keep their relationship and show the rest of the community that they are in a strong relationship. Their church endorses their relationship. What gives me the right to take away that relationship?

He asked me how we would benefit people if we treat them differently? How could that court judgment be used to treat people differently and not equally?

It reminds me of the kind of division we have in that some people believe that people can be treated differently. They put it in the guise of being equal but different. I remember when those arguments were used in the civil rights movements. Quite frankly there was a discussion earlier here about people of different races marrying and the stigma attached to that. I am married to Terry Chow, who was originally born in Hong Kong. We have two beautiful children. At times I still get hate mail in my office because I married someone outside my specific race. Those people perceive that my children and my marriage are not equal and they write to me. I will not even mention some of the language they use. That is the reality. There are some people who still do not accept that and it is unfortunate.

That is one of the reasons we have to pass Bill C-38, because when we protect minority rights we protect all Canadians. We have to make sure that people are going to have fair access.

I have had other interesting discussions with people regarding why they want us to move on this issue. I have had discussions with soldiers, firefighters and police officers who tell me that they put their lives on the line every single day for Canadians. They get up in the morning, go to work, not knowing whether or not they will return home. There could be an accident at work, in service to the community or the country. What right do I have as a politician to deny them the equality that other citizens enjoy? Important policy to keep in mind is that the government has a responsibility, as do we parliamentarians, to act on something when we know at the end of the day the conclusion will be through the court system.

That brings me to a very important aspect about this whole debate. If we do not pass this bill, we will simply be sending everything back to the courts. It is an interesting strategy for those who are criticizing the decision of the courts that the very best we could do is to send it back to the courts, to the other four jurisdictions, but where would we go from there? Would it be the notwithstanding clause at that point? Do we go in a circle in the parliamentary cycle in the fall and discuss this issue over and over again?

We need to move forward. The amendments that have been made to the bill, the criticisms that have been related to it such as religious freedoms and sensitivity about it have actually been healthy in some respects. They have helped define the fact that Canadians are still very much interested in having their own religious autonomy. That is going to be protected by the charter. Also, there has been a strengthening of the bill which was unanimously agreed to. I want to read a specific clause in the bill about that which is important to note. It is clause 3.1, freedom of conscience and religion and expression of beliefs:

For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religious guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.

That is important. It does not just say that the court is going to define this. It says that Parliament in its own will wants to reinforce the fact that we want those organizations to make their own decisions and judgments. There was another amendment related to charitable status so that churches, synagogues and mosques, for example, may decide that they do not want to perform these services and they will not be undermined because they might make different practising decisions.

At the end of the day it comes down to why we should do this. We need to do this because it is the right thing to do.

Parliament has been watching the courts make decisions. At a certain point in time our country has to act. We know that gays and lesbians in our communities are not being treated equally across the country. It is time to finally pass Bill C-38 and make sure that the voice of Parliament is heard in this debate and that we move forward as a country with equality for all.

[Michael John Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's speech very much. I also enjoyed sitting on the civil marriage committee along with him and many others. I have to add my voice of commendation for the way that you, Mr. Speaker, chaired that committee and particularly the way you managed the relationship between the member for Provencher and the member for Hochelaga, which I thought showed great sensitivity.

I am proud to be standing here today in the House, proud that tonight we will indeed provide equality to gay and lesbian Canadians, something that they deserve and something whose time has come.

One of the issues that we heard a lot from witnesses in committee was about the changing roles of marriage and how marriage has changed. We have heard here today some concern from opposition members that marriage has not changed, that this is too dramatic a change. We all recall that not that many years ago blacks and whites did not marry, and Anglicans and Catholics did not marry. Marriage is an evolving process.

One of the concerns that people brought forward to the committee and other places was that Bill C-38 might lead to things such as polygamy. I wonder if the hon. member might be able to reassure Canadians that they do not have to worry about polygamy in the near future.

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly prefer to speak before a larger crowd. I am very happy, therefore, to see that everyone here is listening carefully to what I have to say.

My questions were simple and I think that my friend from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, with whom I sat on the legislative committee considering Bill C-38, could hear them. They were about question 4 in the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada and the lead-up to the report on Bill C-38. I would like to know whether the hon. member thinks that the whole process is going too quickly.

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for his excellent speech. I had the pleasure of sitting on the legislative committee on Bill C-38, and I share his opinion that you did an excellent job as committee chair, knowing the passion this subject arouses. Above all, I admired the calm and truly democratic way in which everything proceeded.

Obviously, when I was elected a year ago, I had no way of knowing how turbulent this Parliament would be. However, like my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, I will be able to say that I took part in what I consider a historic moment, in the sense that this vote will reaffirm the leadership role that Canada can play in terms of the right to equality.

I want to take advantage of my colleague's background in law, since we are not often able to call upon counsel for free in the House. So, I want to know what he thinks about an argument often made by our Conservative friends in committee and during the debates at the different stages of Bill C-38.

I am talking about the fourth question included in the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada on the traditional definition of marriage. Since the Supreme Court did not answer this question, our Conservative colleagues frequently use this as an excuse to claim that Parliament could simply reaffirm the traditional definition of marriage. So, I want his opinion on this.

If I may, I also want to ask his opinion about the frequent complaint that this legislation is being rushed through with no regard for the democratic process. In this context, I want—

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what a great day it is today for rights and freedoms in Quebec and Canada. This great day should be celebrated, not only by the minority that in the next few days will finally obtain the right to marry, anywhere in Canada, but also by all the heterosexuals who have supported the cause of equality, the cause of rights and freedoms, whether from the very beginning or only more recently. They know very well that confirming the rights and freedoms of a minority does not take anything away from the majority that previously enjoyed these rights and freedoms.

It has often been said in this debate, which has been going on now for many a long year, that marriage is an important institution in our society. That is very true. It is an institution through which society or the state recognizes the commitment that two people make to one another.Through the institution of marriage, society, the state, recognizes the importance of conjugal love.

The fact that homosexuals have fought hard and have spent time, money and energy for access to marriage—this basic institution in our society—demonstrates the enormous respect they have for it and their desire to gain access to it. Their entry into the institution of marriage will strengthen it because they are people who believe in it and have spent years fighting for access to it.

I would like to make two comments on the side. People who followed the debates in committee will know what I want to say. Marriage is not a static institution, contrary to what some people claim. I said so yesterday and it is important to repeat it. Just a few decades ago, when a woman married in Quebec she lost her adult status and became the responsibility of her husband, just as she had previously been the responsibility of her parents. But society changed, and as it changed, the various institutions and elements that make it up changed as well. Fifty years ago, women were not considered equal to men; now, they are.

Today, it is high time to give couples consisting of same sex partners access to the institution of marriage.

There is something else as well that we have heard many times in this debate, namely that marriage is supposedly—to use the expression of my friend in the Conservative Party who spoke before me—a child-centred institution. I challenge every member in this House who has gone before the altar to get married, whether once or more than once, to say whether having children was ever part, even one time, of the vows they exchanged. The answer is no.

When a couple gets married they promise fidelity, mutual support and friendship; they do not promise to have children. The purpose can vary according to what the couple wants or can do. What marriage celebrates is the recognition of conjugal love between two people.

The bill before us was improved by two amendments on the freedom of religion.

Although the bill deals specifically with civil marriage, some religious groups met with us many times to express their fears and apprehension concerning freedom of religion. It was with the utmost respect for these religious groups that my colleague from Hochelaga and I addressed the problem. We were very open to the representations made by the representatives of churches, temples, mosques and synagogues.

Mr. Speaker, you chaired this legislative committee admirably. I told you that privately today and now I am telling you that in public. Although I do not share the same views as these religious groups that oppose opening civil marriage to gays and lesbians, the other members of the committee and I listened to what they had to say. After several meetings with these religious groups and individuals, we presented an amendment, the only one to be adopted yesterday at report stage. It is an amendment that states in black and white that no religious group will lose its status as a charitable organization for refusing to celebrate marriages between same sex couples. One of these Christian groups made a suggestion for an amendment, which we presented and which was passed yesterday.

I want to say one final word on freedom of religion: it is as important and as fundamental to the Bloc as the right to equality, which, in our case law, now includes the right for same sex partners to marry. This freedom of religion is fundamental in a free and democratic society such as those in Quebec and Canada. This freedom of religion must not mean that the religion of some should become the law for others. We do not live in a Catholic, Evangelical or Protestant state or in a Jewish, Islamic or Buddhist state. We live in a secular state, where the separation between church and state is one of our civilization's finest achievements. It is an example of the fundamental principles from the age of enlightenment that have enabled us to expand the definition of marriage to include same sex partners for civil purposes.

We observe society's evolution with respect to civil marriage. However, we are in no way changing the Catholic vision of marriage as a sacrament, according to this church, which does not accept or allow divorce. This in no way changes Jewish marriage, for example, where, in order to marry, both partners must belong to the Jewish faith. This in no way changes any other religious wishes or religious definitions of marriage.

In any state with a justifiable and constitutional charter of rights and freedoms, the courts play an important role. For about the past 10 years discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation has been illegal, under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Furthermore, the highest courts in eight jurisdictions in Canada, including the appeal courts of Quebec, Ontario and B.C., which are the three most densely populated provinces in Canada, have ruled that the so-called traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional. The Ontario and B.C. appeal courts struck down the common law definition of marriage, which dated back to 1866. The Quebec appeal court struck down the legislated definition of marriage that was passed by this Parliament in 2001.

That very clearly contradicts those, in the Conservative Party, especially, who said that Parliament had simply to reaffirm its belief in or its support for the so-called traditional definition of marriage, and the courts would follow.

First off, allow me to say that, each time someone says “all we need to do is such and such”, all too often the solution proposed is overly simplistic. The “all-we-needs”, as we might define them, are simplistic solutions for complex problems.

I have to agree as well with the 134 law professors who took the fairly unusual and exceptional step of signing a joint letter to the leader of the Conservative Party. In the letter, these eminent professors said, rightly, that the only way to make marriage between partners of the same sex illegal in Canada would be to use the notwithstanding clause.

That was my opinion before the letter. My legal analysis led me to say at the time—and these 134 professors concur—that the only way, today, for us parliamentarians to prevent partners of the same sex from marrying is to say that, notwithstanding what the courts have said, we are suspending the rights and freedoms recognized by the courts for a period of five years, five years being the maximum period the notwithstanding clause may be applied.

Never would I vote, nor would I ask my colleagues to vote, to suspend the recognized rights and freedoms afforded a minority that has been persecuted too long, not only in Quebec and Canada, but throughout the world.

The choice facing us is to support Bill C-38, which would expand the right of same sex partners to marry in the eight jurisdictions where the right already exists and in the other jurisdictions where it does not, or to state very clearly that we are prepared to use the notwithstanding clause.

I have participated in this debate for many years. I have been an MP for eight years, during which time few matters I have been involved in as a parliamentarian have made me as proud. I am proud to take part in the process that will broaden the right to equality of thousands of Quebeckers and Canadians who want to marry. Be they two men or two women, they want to be able to say publicly to society, the government and the world that they are committed to a solid relationship, they are in a relationship of equals, and they are publicly declaring their love for each other.

Having taken part in this debate, having heard the vast majority of the 472 witnesses who appeared before the committee the first time around and the 60 or so who testified before the legislative committee, having travelled across Canada, from Vancouver to the Maritimes, via Iqaluit, Montreal Toronto, and many other places, and having received wedding pictures over the past two summers of couples who told me, “Look, we got married. Thank you, thank you for your part in it”, I say that is wonderful, The pleasure is all mine.

To conclude, when I rock myself in my rocking chair, a few decades from now I hope, with my dentures in a glass on the side table, I will tell my children about what I did when I was a member of Parliament. When they ask me, “Where were you, Dad, when this debate took place? What did you do to provide these men and women with the same right as everyone else?”, I will be able to say that I was there and that, on this June 28, 2005, I voted in favour of these men and women finally having access to marriage, as opposite sex spouses have had for decades, centuries, millennia.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House again today to speak to Bill C-38. As I have previously stated, I am fully aware of both the privilege and responsibility that I have been given as a representative of the diverse communities and residents that compose the riding of Niagara West--Glanbrook. All my hon. colleagues in the House also have the duty to reflect the values and concerns of their constituents.

Each time I have risen to speak on the bill, I have clearly said that I will be voting against the legislation that will change the definition of marriage. In my vote I have faithfully taken the direction that has been so clearly expressed by the people of Niagara West--Glanbrook.

More than any other item on the government's agenda, which has been incredibly lacking when it comes to effectively responding to real concerns of Canadians, the issue of same sex marriage has evoked an outpouring of commentary.

The same sex marriage bill has inspired tremendous debate and considerations throughout all segments of my community. To date I have received feedback for up to close to 10,000 individuals from my constituency and thousands more from coast to coast on the definition of marriage.

Overwhelmingly the residents of the communities of Niagara West--Glanbrook have indicated support for maintaining the current definition of marriage. I agree with the majority of public views I have received, that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.

During the election campaign I promised my constituents that I would vote in support of this definition and that promise I have kept with them.

I have solicited the opinion of my constituents by asking them through news letters, emails and other correspondence and I would like to share the response. Almost 90% of my constituents are against changing the meaning of marriage, 9% support changing it and the remainder has no opinion.

Contrary to the claims of the Prime Minister with regard to anyone who does not support the legislation, the residents of my riding are Canadian and so are the millions of Canadians from coast to coast who oppose the legislation. Are their voices any less important than other Canadians? In my eyes, definitely not.

However, I am not so confident that all members of the House can look their constituents in the eye and claim that they wholeheartedly represent them. How long can the Liberal government claim that its is fixing the democratic deficit when it refuses to hear the voices that oppose it?

Just last week the government tabled the report on democratic reform which it stated was at the top of its priority list. It has stated that its action plan on democratic reform is based on three pillars of democracy: ethics and integrity, restoring the representative and deliberate role of MPs and accountability.

The Liberal government has failed miserably on all three counts. In the action plan the government has stated:

Democratic Reform will re-connect Parliamentarians with Canadians by giving MPs greater freedom to voice the views and concerns of their constituents, by providing parliamentary committees with more resources to influence and shape legislation, and by requiring that Ministers are actively engaged with MPs and Committees on priorities and legislative initiatives.

What this means for individual Canadians is that the people they elect will be able to better reflect their views in the process of government. It also means increased responsibilities for individual Members of Parliament to ensure that these reforms result in real change.

That is a quote from the report. From my time I have been here in the last year, that could not be further from the truth. Many committees have made many recommendations to the House that have been totally ignored or just shelved for a later point in time.

I would like to repeat one more time that I hope all members from all parties take this to heart. The government talks about the fact that democratic reform will reconnect parliamentarians with Canadians by giving MPs greater freedom to voice the views and concerns of the constituents. What this means for individual Canadians is that people they elect will be better able to reflect the views of the process of government. It also means increased responsibilities for individual members of Parliament to ensure that these reforms result in real change. I am not exactly sure at what point in time Parliament strayed away from this democracy by honouring the wishes of Canadians, but now is the time that we need to restore democracy.

The government can produce reports, action plans and even create a minister of democratic reform, but these measures are meaningless if members of the House are to ignore the voices of Canadians on an issue that will alter one of the most fundamental institutions in our society.

The government can produce reports, action plans and even create a Minister of Democratic Reform, but these measures are meaningless if members of the House are to ignore the voices of Canadians on an issue that will alter one of the most fundamental institutions in our society. The fact is the Liberal government and, indeed, the Prime Minister, are not interested in restoring faith in democracy. They will even alienate their own beliefs along with their constituents' beliefs to ensure that they maintain whatever little power they may have left.

I am baffled that many members of the Liberal government who not so long ago spoke so fearlessly in preserving the traditional definition of marriage. Now they immediately will do as they are told and vote for the bill.

It has been quoted before, but I would like to quote the speech of the hon. Deputy Prime Minister delivered in the House on September 2003 when she was the justice minister. She stated:

Marriage has fundamental value and importance to Canadians and we do not believe on this side of the House that importance and value is in any way threatened or undermined by others seeking to have their long term relationships recognized. I support the motion for maintaining the clear legal definition of marriage in Canada as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

In free votes in 1999 and again in 2003, the hon. Deputy Prime Minister voted for maintaining the traditional definition of marriage, as did many others in government. Yet she along with her cohorts will stand in the House again today, as she did last night, and force the will of the Liberal government on the Canadian people and vote for a bill that will reverse exactly what she fought so hard to preserve on two previous occasions. Maybe “fought” is too strong a word.

My intention is not to single out the Deputy Prime Minister. She is just one of the many in cabinet who publicly opposed changing the traditional definition of marriage in the past. In fact there are currently 20 Liberal members who in 1999 freely voted to preserve the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, who now vote to destroy marriage. There were 34 Liberals who have voted against the government. This also includes the current Prime Minister.

There could be many more Liberal members whose constituents oppose the legislation, but without a free vote, the voices of Canadians will be ignored and our democracy trampled on once again.

I applaud the hon. members who have put their political careers aside to truly represent what they and their constituents believe is right. They have sacrificed their aspirations for what is best for the country. Why will the Prime Minister not do the same thing?

It is rather unfortunate that the Prime Minister has given his cabinet an ultimate: Vote in favour of the government or lose your ministerial perks.

The NDP, a party which also claims it is the true voice of democracy, has also whipped its members into submission. The only member of that party who dared voice an opinion has been muted and has been told to sit on her hands during a vote on one of our society's fundamental institutions. This is just another example of the Liberal-NDP coalition forcing members to toe the party line. I will mention, though, the member did vote last night and I was encouraged to see that.

Coercion is not a tool of democracy, it is a tool of tyranny. All hon. members should resist the threats of having their political careers ended prematurely by voting against the bill. As elected representatives, we were sent to Ottawa for a specific reason: to be the voice of our constituents, to embody the wishes of the great people of this country and to protect their democracy and freedom.

The justice minister has presented the bill as a charter issue. He has said that it will give all people equality. He has stated that religious freedoms will not be affected by the passage of the bill. I would challenge him on this.

There are numerous instances that have already occurred which have put religious freedoms at risk. Scott Brockie owns a printing company called Imaging Excellence. In 1996 Mr. Brockie refused to provide printing services to the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives on the basis that the cause of homosexuality was offensive to his religious belief. The CLG Archives filed a human rights complaint under the Ontario Human Rights Code, alleging that Mr. Brockie discriminated against them on the basis of sexual orientation. A board of inquiry, appointed under the Ontario Human Rights Code, found that Mr. Brockie did discriminate and fined him.

Then there is the case of Mr. Kempling. Chris Kempling is a teacher and a school counsellor in Quesnel, B.C., who was disciplined by a professional body, the B.C. College of Teachers, for writing letters to the editor of a local newspaper denouncing the school's teaching on homosexuality.

The B.C. Supreme Court upheld the discipline and said that Mr. Kempling was not entitled to protection. Mr. Kempling was not even working at the time.

I could mention Bishop Fred Henry as another individual, the Knights of Columbus and the list goes on and on. Bishop Henry said:

The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to same-sex couples is not discrimination. It is not something opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires such an opposition.

It is the right and the responsibility of all citizens who are troubled by the proposal to reinvent the institution of marriage, to enter into the debate and, with clarity and charity, to make their voices heard by their fellow citizens and our political leaders.

It is through their elected representatives that we must let the citizens of our great country be heard. The majority of Canadians have clearly stated that they want marriage to continue to be defined as the union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. When the vote is called, I would encourage all my colleagues to courageously stand and vote against Bill C-38.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, let us talk about democracy. In 2003 the justice committee was shut down without the opportunity to report to Parliament. Liberal members were hiding in the hall and not allowing quorum.

I sat on the legislative committee that dealt with Bill C-38. Witnesses were bunched four and five at a time. I sit on another committee and that is not the way we do things. Witnesses were given 24 hours or less notice to appear. They were given no opportunity to have their presentations translated. In my view that was not a proper process. I know members from the other side will talk about the lengthy process with 400 witnesses but the justice committee was not dealing with this legislation.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's comments and there were really three parts to his speech. I will address two of those parts and ask him a question.

The first part has to do with the issue of democracy. If he had listened to the Minister of Justice he would have heard that the committee had 500 witnesses, visited 12 cities and received 300 submissions. Bill C-38 went through committee clause by clause. All of what he has asked for has already happened exhaustively.

My second point is with respect to the issue of religious beliefs. As the minister said very clearly, the right to religious beliefs and the protection of religious institutions to act out their beliefs is the first among all rights within this country.

The member mentioned the issue of children. Does he not think that Bill C-38 actually strengthens the rights of children because gay and lesbian couples actually have children? Bill C-38 would enable lesbian and gay couples to have a civil marriage, not a religious marriage because it is up to religious institutions to marry whomever they wish. Does he not think that Bill C-38 strengthens the rights of those children whose parents happen to be gay or lesbian?

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the whole issue revolves around the rights of children. If we make marriage an adult-centred institution then we do so to the detriment of it being a children-centred institution. That is one of the many concerns I have about this legislation.

I talked about the process and I would like to go back to that for a second because it is another thing that I am greatly concerned about. In 2003, when the government had the opportunity to appeal the decision of the Ontario Supreme Court, it failed to do so. Despicable things went on in the committee. Liberal members of the committee hid in the hall, refusing to allow a quorum to address that question. It is a really sad state of affairs that our country is now in this state.

If Bill C-38 is such a great bill and such a great concept, why would we not allow proper debate, discussion and opportunity? If it were so good there would have been no need for the games and no need for this underhanded process to sneak the bill through Parliament.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, I also oppose Bill C-38. I believe that marriage is the legal union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

One of the important debates that took place on Bill C-38 had to do with the issue of whether this was a human rights issue on an equality basis. I wonder if the member would agree with the proposition that this is a matter of rights, but it is a matter of the rights of children and of families which have been ignored in this legislation by de-linking children from their parents.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to stand in this House today and state my unequivocal opposition to Bill C-38.

I am in agreement with many of my colleagues on this issue, in that I support the traditional definition of marriage which is the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I believe that all rights can be granted to same sex couples without the need to change this common law definition that stretches back to before Confederation and has helped define this great country for almost 138 years.

The definition of marriage which has been consistently applied in Canada comes from an 1866 British case which holds that marriage is the union of one woman and one man to the exclusion of all others. I believe what the Conservative Party of Canada offers on this issue is a reasonable compromise.

My arguments will not concentrate on these issues. I merely wish to put it into perspective, so that we can compare it to the situation in which we currently find ourselves in this debate.

My discussions will centre on the process by which the government has been attempting to ram this legislation down the throats of Canadians by cloaking its arguments in the mantra of human rights. I want to speak today about the flaws in the process and the lack of accountability to the Canadian people and the method by which we stand here today when we should have been in our ridings having dialogue with our constituents.

There has not been a proper debate on this issue involving the people of Canada and there has not been a proper process followed to allow full debate by parliamentarians.

The government introduced this bill after insufficient public debate and rushed it through the House, and sent it to a committee that I happened to have sat on that in my view did not allow proper examination of witnesses. It was not the proper process. This was a committee that the government knew would discuss the bill quickly. It was designed to get this issue out of the way with little opportunity for debate, permitting no changes. We now find ourselves in extended sittings as we fully expected we would, and we fully expected the government to invoke closure, as it has. The government is shutting down debate. We are going to pass this piece of legislation that flies in the face of the history of our country.

Late in his mandate, the former Prime Minister sent a proposed piece of legislation to the Supreme Court of Canada for a ruling on human rights issues. The current Prime Minister added a clause to that proposed piece of legislation in an effort to hog-tie the court and Parliament. Of course, and thankfully, the court saw through that feeble attempt and made no ruling.

I have several problems with the actions of these two prime ministers. First, this is not a debate about human rights. It is a debate about politics and social policy. Therefore, it should be treated in a much different way from how it has been handled by the current and previous governments.

I and my colleagues, and indeed every person in this place, have been elected by Canadians to debate and decide issues of concern to this country and its people. Whether it is the civil marriage bill, budget bills, assistance for foreign countries, missile defence, assistance for our farmers or any number of other issues, we the elected members of Parliament have been chosen by the people of Canada to debate and ultimately decide the direction of this country.

If the party opposite believed that, it would have followed the accepted process for such issues as Bill C-38. That process would have involved some sort of public dialogue and arguments for and against. The government would have brought the issue before the House and it would never have gone to the Supreme Court of Canada first.

A proper process would have taken into consideration the decisions and wishes of a previous Parliament, a Parliament that included some of our current members, which determined that the only definition of marriage that is acceptable to Canadians is the traditional definition of marriage.

A proper process would have included statements by members of Parliament that they would do everything in their power to defend the traditional definition of marriage. It would have included statements by judges on the Supreme Court that defined and defended the traditional definition of marriage.

Let me offer some examples. In 1995 Supreme Court Justice Gérard La Forest, speaking on behalf of four judges in the majority in the Egan decision, wrote:

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 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.

This statement remains the only commentary on the basic meaning of marriage in any Supreme Court decision and would have been included in any proper debate.

I will offer another example. This House, which at the time included the current Prime Minister, voted to uphold the traditional definition of marriage in 1999 and the amendments to Bill C-23 in 2000, with the Deputy Prime Minister, who was the then justice minister, leading the cause of the defence of marriage.

The following is what the Deputy Prime Minister said in 1999 in her eloquent defence of the traditional definition of marriage. She said:

We on this side agree that the institution of marriage is a central and important institution in the lives of many Canadians. It plays an important part in all societies worldwide, second only to the fundamental importance of family to all of us.... The definition of marriage, which has been consistently applied in Canada, comes from an 1866 British case which holds that marriage is “the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”. That case and that definition are considered clear law by ordinary Canadians, by academics and by the courts. The courts have upheld the constitutionality of that definition.

We have also heard comments from our Minister of Immigration that are consistent with that.

If the bill had followed proper process, these parliamentary statements and the court decisions would have had to be factored into the formulation of any bill that upholds the rights of same sex couples.

There may have been, and rightly so, a referendum. After this type of proper debate, the government would then have presented a bill for first reading, second reading and a proper committee hearing. The proper committee for the bill would have been the justice committee, but instead of carrying out the correct process, the Liberals formed a special committee and then loaded it in their favour. They charged through committee hearings at a blistering pace that did not allow ordinary parliamentarians the time for proper research and questioning of witnesses.

The Liberal chair of the committee ruled suggested modifications by the Conservatives to be out of order and the committee swiftly sent this piece of legislation back to the House for debate and third reading.

As we witnessed last week, the government will stop at nothing and use any trick in the book to avoid proper debate and reach its own predetermined end.

As I prepared this speech I wondered if I would in fact be granted the time to present it here in this place. I wondered that because of what we witnessed last week. I and most Canadians expected the coalition government to barricade proper debate on the bill once again, as it has, and close the doors on this sad chapter in the history of this place.

We all know that if a free vote were allowed by all parties, where MPs could represent the wishes of their ridings, the legislation would fail. It is this lack of proper process and the lack of real democracy more than anything, that I am truly concerned with today. I also have a great deal of concern about the lack of protection of religious freedom and the strengthening of that protection against discrimination for religious beliefs.

At this time I would like to move an amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following therefore:

Bill C-38, an act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes, be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the legislative committee for the purpose of reconsidering all of its clauses with the view to strengthen protection against discrimination for religious beliefs and that the legislative committee on Bill C-38 be reconstituted for the purpose of this reconsideration.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the hon. member's observations have to do with Bill C-38, which is the subject before the House. In fact, I did not hear any direct reference to Bill C-38.

The hon. member made references to matters relating to health care, child care and the environment, and then to the fact that these were invasions of provincial jurisdiction. The last time I looked these were the subject of federal-provincial-territorial agreements brought about with the understanding, concurrence, support and indeed at times even the initiative of the provinces.

We are talking about an exercise in cooperative federalism, which is a central pillar of a whole approach to constitutional law and policy. We are talking about cooperative federalism in the service of the public good regardless of partisan party or politics in that regard. We respected the Constitution for our social justice agenda for the public good and we are respecting the Constitution with respect to Bill C-38.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I indicated, here we stand on the final day of debate in this House, with the opposition suggesting alternatives to the present approach to Bill C-38 that are simply not founded as a matter of law and simply do not exist.

I would like to use some of my short time available to explain in as brief a way as possible what choices are and are not open to us, as well as the costs and implication of those choices, in particular for our values and for our future.

The opposition members have continued during their speeches in the House and in hearings of the legislative committee to suggest that there is a compromise available to us, which would mean legislating the traditional opposite sex definition of marriage once again, this repeated yesterday by Mr. Harper, and it would offer the same rights and privileges of marriage to same sex couples, but through civil union, not marriage.

This alleged compromise is based on two assumptions which involve occurrences that are so unlikely they cannot really be put forward as realistic options and which do not have any real legal grounding in law.

First, the alleged compromise, while technically possible, can be implemented only if Parliament is willing to use the notwithstanding clause, only if it is willing to use the clause to override the charter, court decisions, rule of law and the like.

Second, even if that were to be done, it is unlikely that the law the opposition proposes could survive a court challenge, as Parliament simply does not have the authority to bring about this compromise.

Let me begin with why the notwithstanding clause would have to be used to re-enact an opposite sex definition of civil marriage.

The opposition assertion that somehow it is still open to Parliament to re-enact the traditional definition of marriage, to override the equality rights provisions of the charter, to override the decisions of courts in nine jurisdictions, and to override the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, without using the notwithstanding clause, is based on a leap of logic in law: that because the Supreme Court of Canada did not answer the fourth question put to them by the government in the marriage reference, Parliament is now free to decide the issue any way it wants.

I should add parenthetically that the fourth question that was put, and I added that question to the reference, as to whether the traditional definition of marriage is compatible with the charter, was included not because we intended to argue in support of that position, but to allow those who wished to argue in support of that position to be able to do so before the court. Indeed, the court admitted 28 interveners to provide as full and as fair and as comprehensive hearing as possible on this issue before the Supreme Court of Canada.

As to the question we put and supported as to whether extending access to civil marriage to gays and lesbians was compatible with the charter, the court answered, as I mentioned, and it is important to bear this in mind, that it was not only consistent with the charter but flowed from the principles and values of the charter.

As well, it is incorrect to say that the Supreme Court of Canada did not answer the question asked in the reference without stating that when the court came to question four, the answer, as the court itself acknowledged, was moot. For the court to have answered it at that point, as the court itself said, would have been unprecedented. This is particularly in light of the reason the Supreme Court gave us for not answering that question.

Simply put, the court said it was not necessary to answer question four because courts in six provinces and territories at that time had already come to this conclusion; that several thousand couples had already relied on these court decisions to get married and had acquired, as the court put it, protected rights; that the government had already indicated it would legislate to provide equal access to civil marriage to same sex couples in the reference itself; and, most important, something that is being ignored, that the Supreme Court of Canada had already effectively answered the question when it answered the earlier question on whether same sex marriage was constitutional and unanimously held it to be so.

Accordingly, what the opposition leaves out in its argument for alternatives is that the court, as I indicated, did not answer the question because it deemed the question to be moot, because, in effect, the court had already answered the question before. This does not mean that the court said that whatever decision Parliament makes would be constitutional or that we have a blank slate here. Rather, nothing in the Supreme Court decision overruled the binding decisions in the now nine provinces and territories finding that the opposite sex definition of marriage is inconsistent with the fundamental guarantee of equality in the charter.

As well, the opposition referred to the nine decisions striking down the traditional definition of marriage as being “only lower court decisions”. Somehow it is being suggested that only a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on this subject needs to be followed and so the House would only be required to exercise its power of the notwithstanding clause in the face of a Supreme Court of Canada decision.

This appreciation of the issue is not only wrong in fact, it is contrary to the rule of law. What needs to be appreciated is that where a law has been found to be unconstitutional, the only options open to Parliament are to either remedy the unconstitutionality, which is what we are doing with Bill C-38, or overrule that court decision by invoking the notwithstanding clause. Invoking the notwithstanding clause means that Parliament is publicly stating that it will pass the law despite the fact that it is knowingly unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court of Canada is not the only court in the country that governments are bound to respect under the rule of law. Courts in nine jurisdictions have declared that restricting civil marriage to opposite sex couples is unconstitutional. Their decisions stand as binding on us. They are constitutional law in this country. They are a law for making laws.

The opposition may wish to speculate on what the Supreme Court might have done under other circumstances. However, it cannot continue to state that the House can ignore those court decisions and re-enact the same law that has already been declared unconstitutional.

There is a Constitution in this country. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a centrepiece of that Constitution. This country is a constitutional democracy. W need to conduct ourselves with the full respect for this country as a constitutional democracy under the rule of law.

The opposition would also have us believe that changes to the definition of civil marriage can somehow come about because of an alleged lack of action on the part of Parliament. The problem with this theory is that Parliament had already legislated the opposite sex definition of civil marriage. It was this federal legislation that was considered by the courts in Quebec, not the common law definition of marriage, yet the statute, and I underline statute, was also found unconstitutional by those courts.

Yes, the government could have continued to appeal all of those decisions to the Supreme Court, but did that really make sense? Should more taxpayers' money be spent on appeals in the face of what were unanimous decisions in all jurisdictions and regions of this country? The government made a decision that it was the role of Parliament to craft a uniform Canada-wide solution based on the decisions of the courts and as invited to do by the Supreme Court.

The second mistaken assertion of the opposition is that it could create equality for same sex couples by legislating a form of civil union that would give them the same rights and privileges of marriage. The opposition describes this as a responsible compromise.

However, both the British Columbia and Ontario courts of appeal have already looked at the possibility of a civil union alternative and said that it would be less than equal and therefore unconstitutional and would stand as a pronouncement on the rule of constitutional law in this country.

Even if Parliament adopted this approach, civil unions are within provincial and territorial jurisdiction, as the opposition acknowledges, and leaving it to the provinces and territories to try to solve this question would inevitably result in a patchwork of 13 different civil union schemes that would not guarantee equality.

The compromise offered by the opposition may appear to have a superficial attraction to it but it is simply not possible in Canada's legal and constitutional framework.

Let me turn now to the important question of religious freedom. The government takes this question most seriously, so seriously, as I mentioned, that we took the additional time to refer the proposed legislation to the highest court in the land to make sure that religious freedom would not be threatened. This principle of religious freedom is now included in five separate places in the bill for greater certainty.

The opposition would have us believe that Bill C-38 imperils the exercise of freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is portrayed as the weaker sister to equality, and it is asserted that whenever courts and tribunals are faced with a clash between equality rights and religious rights, equality rights will always trump religious freedom.

Such an assertion ignores both the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the reference and any number of other charter decisions. The Supreme Court has consistently indicated that freedom of religion must be fully respected. Indeed, as the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Brian Dickson, asserted, freedom of religion is the “firstness of our freedom”, to which I referred in many articles that I was writing long before I ever became the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

If additional specific protections are desired in terms of civic marriage officials, commercial provision of services or rentals of church halls, they admittedly would have to be added to provincial and territorial laws. I have raised this with my provincial and territorial colleagues.

Ontario has already responded, passing a new bill extending further protections for religious freedom. Quebec already has specific protection in the civil code for religious officials who refuse to marry a couple. Other provinces are now considering additional legislative protection. I brought it up in our meeting of the federal-provincial-territorial ministers of justice.

Bill C-38 fully respects the religious freedom guarantees of the charter, and this government has made a commitment to the importance of those religious freedom guarantees. Religious freedom is not threatened here, no more than it was in earlier changes to allow civil divorce, which enabled first cousins to marry and so on, none of which affected religious practice. This is a bill with respect to civil marriage. It does not affect religious marriage, religious institutions or religious beliefs and in fact expressly protects them.

As I have outlined, the compromise offered by the opposition is not possible within Canada's legal and constitutional framework. There are before us today only two alternatives, not a blank slate. The Conservative compromise is not a responsible contribution to this debate in this regard.

Bill C-38 emerges as the only responsible and appropriate constitutional compromise, one that will preserve the important and central institution of civil marriage in our society for both opposite sex and same sex couples seeking that degree of commitment. It will also ensure at the same time that religious groups continue to have the freedom to make their own decisions about marriage, both those who wish to maintain the traditional definition of marriage and those who might wish to recognize marriage for same sex couples.

The charter is the expression and entrenchment of our rights and freedoms, the codification of the best of Canadian values and aspirations, and we are all its beneficiaries. It defines us as to who we are as a people and what we aspire to be. It is in that spirit that this legislation has been tabled and in which this democratic debate and exercise in democracy has been carried out. It is also in that spirit and in that hope for equality, for the rights of minorities and for the protection of religious freedom, that I trust this legislation will be enacted.

Rights are rights. None of us can, nor should we, pick and choose whose rights we will defend and whose rights we will ignore. The government must represent the rights of all Canadians equally.

We understand and we respect the fact there are strong feelings on all sides of this debate. We are talking about a central, longstanding institution of society. We trust and hope that this bill will lead not only to a more respectful solution, but a solution governed by mutual tolerance and understanding, a solution anchored in charter principles of equality rights, minority rights, respect for religious freedom and respect for diversity, and, as I said, which represents the best of our hopes and aspirations for an egalitarian and just society.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I will get to the fourth question if I am not interrupted and the member allows me the democratic right to share my remarks with the people of Canada.

I fully acknowledge that the legal and constitutional principles involved here are complex. I understand there are strong feelings on all sides of the debate and that many Canadians are still struggling with the idea of change to one of Canadian society's central institutions.

I have seen for myself the diversity of answers.

There is a diversity of feelings, respect and expressions, all of which deserve respect, yet here we stand on the final day of debate in this House and the opposition continues to suggest that somehow there are alternatives to the present approach of Bill C-38, which are simply not available. I would like to use--

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-38, An Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-38, the civil marriage act, has now arrived at third reading stage. This journey has been a long one and, from my perspective, I would say that it started in 1982 when Parliament passed the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

What is important to appreciate is that it was a parliamentary initiative to enact the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to make it part of our Constitution. It was Parliament that then vested the courts with the role of protecting these fundamental rights and freedoms, including equality rights and religious freedoms on behalf of all Canadians.

It was the people of Canada, including minorities, gays and lesbians among them, who invoked the charter and sought remedy and redress from these courts.

It was the courts of Canada, including those in eight provinces and one territory, that held that the opposite sex requirement for marriage was an unconstitutional breach of the equality rights section in the charter.

It was the Supreme Court of Canada that unanimously held that the purpose of the government's legislation, “Far from violating the Charter, flows from it”. The court also held that no religious official can be compelled to perform a same sex marriage if it is contrary to his or her religion or beliefs.

Accordingly, the issue now returns to the place from where it all began, here in Parliament where the people of Canada are now speaking to their elected representatives.

On February 1, the government tabled Bill C-38 in order to fulfil Parliament's responsibilities to respect equality rights by extending access to marriage to same sex couples and to render uniform the definition of marriage across the country, as invited to do so in the unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The essence of the legislation, anchored as it is in the two foundational principles under the charter, equality rights and religious freedom, involve the extension of equal access to civil marriage to same sex couples while, at the same time, respecting religious freedom.

This has been known to us for over two years. Indeed, it was in July 2002 that the government referred its draft bill to the Supreme Court of Canada. During this period, and it is important and bears recall, all aspects of the bill had been discussed in depth in the House during second reading earlier and in the predecessor standing committee that travelled across Canada, went to 12 cities, heard from over 500 witnesses and received over 300 written submissions, all of which has been incorporated by reference in the testimony and report of the present special legislative committee.

It has been before the courts in nine provinces and territories, before the Supreme Court of Canada in the reference hearing and, most recently, as I mentioned, before the special legislative committee established to examine Bill C-38. That committee met for 21 sessions over the last month and comprehensively examined each clause of the bill, hearing from over 70 witnesses and receiving submissions from many more.

During its comprehensive review, the committee considered 19 recommendations for amendment and, consistent with the principles with respect to amendments and to be consistent with the principles of the bill and within federal jurisdiction, accepted two of those amendments.

I have yet to mention the media, another public forum that has given this issue one of the longest and continuous high profiles in recent history. I am pleased that there has been so much involvement by so many on this important issue and would say that this has been an exemplary democratic discussion and debate.

I have had the opportunity myself to visit every region in this country to engage in that debate with the faith communities, with the cultural communities, with non-governmental organizations and with the whole expression of civil society in that regard.

However, with all this discussion, debate and detailed clause by clause examination, the opposition's main arguments against the bill rests on three assertions that are simply unfounded as a matter of law and unfounded as a matter of policy.

The first argument is that it is somehow open to the House to re-enact the opposite sex definition of civil marriage without using the notwithstanding clause.

That is what Mr. Harper reiterated yesterday.

The second argument is that Parliament can ensure that the equality guarantee is respected through some form of civil union.

The third argument is that the bill threatens religious freedoms.

I fully acknowledge that the legal and constitutional principles--

[David Kilgour, Independent, Edmonton—Beaumont, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-38, in Clause 3.1, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 3 with the following:

“by reason of their exercise, in respect of”

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-38, in Clause 3.1, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 3 with the following:

“3.1 No person or”

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me in these final moments of this stage of the debate on Bill C-38. I was watching the debate from the comfort of my office and noticed by the tone and the content of some of the comments being made by the members opposite that they might benefit from one simple point of view. I rushed over here to share that with them.

The message to them is simply this. If they do not support same sex marriage, they should not marry somebody of the same sex. They should marry somebody of the opposite sex. Then everyone would be happy and they would have less to be so cantankerous about. That is my simple advice. If they do not support same sex marriage, they should not marry somebody of the same sex. It really is quite simple.

There is another point that I wanted to share. It just came over the wire recently while I was in my office. It is a press release from the United Church of Canada. It was released today. The heading states, “United Church of Canada urges Parliament to vote in favour of same-sex marriage”. It reads:

In a statement released today, The United Church has called on the Canadian government to move in a timely way to end the debate on Bill C-38 and to vote in favour of same-sex marriage legislation.

“Marriage will be enhanced, not diminished, religious freedom will be protected, not threatened, and Canadian society will be strengthened, not weakened, as a result of this legislation”...

That was said by the chair of the justice, global and ecumenical relations unit of the United Church of Canada.

I ask my colleagues, whose points have been raised in at least a quasi-religious context, to please take note of this message from the United Church of Canada today.

The church goes on to say that:

further rancorous debate over this issue will only serve to polarize positions rather than contribute to building a strong civil society based on the values of inclusion, diversity, mutual respect and fairness.

These are strong sentiments coming from the leaders of the United Church of Canada, who have been watching, I can imagine, with the same sort of dismay that we all share when we see some of the points made today.

I think there is benefit in reading for members this viewpoint from the United Church. The chair of the justice, global and ecumenical relations unit said:

“Religious marriage is not and cannot be affected by this proposed legislation”...He says all religious communities in Canada, whatever their views on same-sex marriage, have the absolute right to determine for themselves who will be eligible for religious marriage within their communities.

Perhaps that gives some comfort to my colleagues, who are clearly upset about the advent of Bill C-38. The United Church also believes that:

the protection for conscientious objection to performing same-sex marriages, which is provided by the Charter and affirmed in the proposed legislation, does not conflict with the right of same sex-couples to marry.

“The enactment of the proposed legislation means that same-sex couples will be able to obtain civil marriage,” explains [the chair of the committee]. He adds that while same-sex couples may not be able to obtain religious marriage, depending on the views of a particular faith community, that is also the case for many other couples such as interfaith couples.

In the case of my own parents, the Catholic church would not marry my parents in the Catholic church because my father was about to marry a heathen Protestant, and the Catholic church would not have it at the time. It was not a charter issue. It was matter of religious freedom. They got married elsewhere.

I wanted to raise this matter tonight. I was not going to enter into the debate, but when this came across my fax machine just one hour ago I felt it necessary to share this because I thought it might bring some comfort to my colleagues, who are clearly not comfortable yet with what is going on today.

The closing line of the press release is particularly powerful. It states:

Freedom of religion does not trump equality, nor does equality trump freedom of religion; the rights must co-exist.

That is the balance we seek today. That is what we strive to achieve: to balance these competing interests. I do not view them as competing interests, but some do. One does not trump the other. They can and do and will co-exist and make our society stronger, not weaker.

Nothing about allowing same sex couples to marry diminishes in any way my heterosexual marriage. Equality is not some finite pie, that if we give more to one group, the other group has to do with less. In fact, my rights grow as they are extended to others. Freedom is only privilege extended until it is enjoyed by everyone. These are the basic fundamental concepts we are dealing with tonight.

I note that people have mobilized around the country on this issue. I wish they would mobilize about issues such as child poverty or global warming with the same degree of passion that they bring to this debate. However, from my point of view, I do not feel threatened when loving couples want to have their commitment to each other ratified and confirmed by an institution like the state of marriage. Others should not feel threatened by that either.

We should take some guidance from the United Church when it says also that it believes the protection for conscientious objection it guarantees, which is provided by the charter and affirmed by the proposed legislation, will not conflict with the right of same sex couples to marry.

These are important principles. I hope that this has some calming influence on my colleagues. Maybe they will sleep better tonight when they know that one of the major religious institutions of the country is urging Parliament to vote in favour of same sex marriage. It is calling upon the Canadian government to move in a timely fashion to end the debate on Bill C-38, which is what we did only an hour earlier when we voted to limit the amount of time we commit to this, and urging again for all members of Parliament to vote in favour of the same sex marriage legislation.

If that is useful to my colleagues, I offer that as providing some comfort to them. If they have any questions, I would be happy to expand on it. I will reiterate one last time that those who do not support same sex marriage should not marry somebody of the same sex, and then perhaps they will not be so conflicted with what is going on today. They should marry somebody of the opposite sex.

[The Speaker]

I am sure the hon. member is getting back to the topic, but I must say that in the debate tonight we have heard a lot about other bills and the application of time allocation on them. While I am sure the hon. parliamentary secretary has his mind on Bill C-38, he has wandered off briefly to describe something else and I know he will be back to the topic before the end of his remarks in one minute's time.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the comments coming from the other side. I understand and I think all of us understand that this is a very sensitive issue. Emotions are inflamed on this for many reasons.

I want to share with the House a little story. As I was walking up to the House a little while ago there were a couple of people who were very big supporters of the Conservative Party and their big issue was the issue of marriage. They wanted to support the status quo or the historical status quo.

When I asked those people what would happen if Bill C-38 did not pass in the House, they said that same sex marriages would no longer be legal and that only marriages between a man and a woman would be allowed in Canada. I told them that they were wrong because marriage between same sex couples was already legal in eight provinces and one territory. That is the reality.

For those who oppose this, only one rational debate can occur, and that is on whether to use the notwithstanding clause under the charter. Under the law that is the only rational debate for those who choose to oppose this. Anything else is just hot air.

They may wish for life to be different. They may wish to remove this bill from the parliamentary calendar, they may wish that it had never existed, as was mentioned from the other side, and they may wish that marriage between same sex couples was illegal but that is not the case.

The other side may wish to simply say that with the stroke of a pen, without getting into the notwithstanding clause, that they may choose to simply bring a bill to this House to say that we want to reverse history. Would that make any difference? No, it would not. Whether or not the other side wishes something does not make it a reality.

At the end of the day, all of us have to live within the context of the law and the Constitution. The law and the Constitution state very clearly that if a party wants to change through legislation dictums that have come through from the lower courts, they have to use the notwithstanding clause.

The Conservatives are being utterly disingenuous in not offering that option. Unless they offer that option, they may as well sign on to this bill and go home to their families, go home to their constituents and say the bill has passed. However they will not do that and that is utterly disingenuous.

I want to get to some other issues that were raised today. I want to talk about the fact that in eight provinces and one territory this is the law. Indeed, in many other countries this is the law. Some of the people who are opposed to this think that the sky will fall, that somehow incest will be legalized, that some people will marry their brothers or their sisters, or that some other concoction will be legal.

The reality is that is not the case. In those countries in Europe that have adopted it or those provinces and that territory in our country that have adopted it, one would be hard-pressed for those who oppose this particular bill to point those out and say that the sky has fallen in those provinces and that territory. The reality is that is not the case.

I think what will happen is that 10 years down the road we will all look at this and say how silly we were to have evoked such venom against this particular bill. At the end of the day, the bill does not change my heterosexuality. It does not change anybody else's marriage. It does not change anything. It simply includes and extends a little bit the boundaries of civil marriage to those who love each other and who choose to enter into marriage.

What we need today is a lot more love and a little less hatred. I think we would all be a little bit better off at the end of the day. At the end of the day the bill will not hurt anyone who has a religious marriage. The bill also will not hurt or damage the rights of churches, synagogues or temples to marry or not marry whomever they choose. It will not infringe upon those rights.

The bill is about civil marriage, not religious marriage. The courts have been very clear that those, for example, who wanted to have a situation where people could have a civil union, that was struck down by the courts. Again, they may wish to have something else but that is not the case.

What I find profoundly disappointing is that we have tried very hard as a government to deal with a myriad of issues, from children to homelessness to students to education to major foreign policy challenges, and rather than the opposition finding the best within themselves and the best ideas that they have and offer those ideas to Canadians as something to put forward, they have churlishly decided to sink themselves into this debate in a highly venomous fashion without opposing it in a way that is rational and legal.

Instead of those members trying to oppose something that is essentially a faite accompli, I challenge those members to offer up better solutions than we have and we will offer up better ones than them because at the end of the day this is about the Canadian public. This is about those people who do not have homes, who cannot get health care, and it is about making companies more competitive.

We have a myriad of challenges. The G-8 summit is coming up. We have offered, as a government, a number of solutions, from forgiving the debt of highly indebted nations to providing more aid, in particular, for Africa and doubling it to 2009. We should deal with the issue of the undervalued Chinese yuan which has huge economic implications for the world and, in particular, for our country as a trading nation.

Those are the issues that matter to Canadians because it matters whether they have a job, it matters whether our exporting companies are competitive, it matters to the future of all Canadians, it matters to our tax base and it matters to our social programs. Those issues are important because it hits Canadians at a visceral level, at their dinner table, and those are issues that mean something to them.

We have offered up solutions for students and for our economy. We have balanced the budget for the eighth time eight years in a row. Do we hear any solutions from the other side? No, we do not. Have we heard a budget from the other side? No, we have not. Have we heard a rational set of solutions for the G-8 summit? No, we have not. We have not heard one solution for a major summit that is taking place, that has profound implications, not only for our country but for the international community and the world in which we live.

Do we hear solutions from them on how to mould the L-20? Do we hear solutions on how deadly conflict can be avoided that has claimed the lives of millions? Do we have any solutions on how the global fund for TB, AIDS and malaria can be improved? Do we hear any solutions on how our research and development can be improved, not only to address health care issues in Canada but also to address those internationally?

Do we hear any solutions to a major health care problem, the issue of mental illness in our country, or that depression will be the second leading cause of morbidity in our country in the future? Do we hear any innovative solutions to what we need to do for our aging population, to how we can incorporate our ever-increasing aging population, albeit healthier, into our workforce, to lower pressure on our social programs and our pension systems? Do we hear any innovative solutions to those things? No, we do not.

Do we hear any innovative workable solutions on defence? Do we hear any solutions on how we can increase our soldier? Do we hear any solutions on how we can improve the way in which our defence forces work?

We are trying. The Minister of Defence has put forth umpteen solutions to accomplish those objectives.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am here to speak the report stage of Bill C-38, the same sex marriage bill. In the 10 minutes I have allocated, and that is another issue which I will speak about, I will talk about why we are here today, the same sex marriage bill. I also will talk about how this could have been avoided and where we can go from here.

With the government invoking time allocation at report stage and third reading, we will be voting on the legislation tomorrow night and there is nothing we can do about it now except to be here to vote and we will. Bill C-38 will probably pass tomorrow night, but that will not be the end of it.

Why are we debating Bill C-38 today? That is an important question. Just a few years ago the current Deputy Prime Minister was in the House defending marriage as the union of one man and one woman. She said that nothing would ever happen to change that and anybody who would suggest that would be speaking absurdity and all kinds of things like that.

The Deputy Prime Minister rose on the opposition motion brought forward by our party back in 1999 and speaking on behalf of the government in a carefully crafted speech she said:

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....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...

She went on later to say:

The institution of marriage is of great importance to large numbers of Canadians, and the definition of marriage as found in the hon. member's motion is clear in law.

This was one of her closing statements, “I fundamentally do not believe that it is necessary to change the definition of marriage” as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Why are we debating Bill C-38 today? That is an important question and a question I have a great deal of difficulty understanding.

We know that about two-thirds of Canadians do not support this legislation. I did a survey of my constituents and received thousands of returns. About 98% of those who responded to my questionnaire, which was dropped at every household in the constituency, supported marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Many of my colleagues have done similar types of surveys and they have found the same results. Polling nationally showed that two-thirds of Canadians do not support the legislation. In my constituency it is much higher.

Why are we debating Bill C-38 today? It seems to me that the government is so obsessed with the issue of same sex marriage that it will not let it go. In the 12 years I have been here I do not remember closure being used in the House the way the Liberals used it on Bill C-48, the NDP budget bill. If Bill C-48 had been defeated, the government would have been defeated and Bill C-38, the civil marriage bill, would not be here today and we would not be dealing with it.

It is not only the government that is obsessed with same sex marriage, but the NDP is also obsessed with this issue. This is the first time the NDP has voted with the government in favour of closure and now today on time allocation.

The Bloc is obsessed with the issue of same sex marriage as well. The Bloc members, who are generally democrats and would not support time allocation or closure, are so obsessed that in the last two days they have formed this unholy alliance with the government; the separatists, the government and the socialists. They have signed an agreement and together they are doing everything they can, including bypassing the normal rules of the House of Commons, to push the bill through.

This is an unholy alliance and this is why we are here today debating Bill C-38. Those three parties are obsessed with the same sex marriage issue. Because of that, they made this deal in bed together, the government with the Bloc and the socialists.

How could this have been avoided? First, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Prime Minister and many members of the Liberal caucus could show that they believe what they say. Many of them, including the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, said a few short years ago that they did not support same sex marriage and that they believed that marriage should be retained as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Therefore, there should be no reason for this bill to be debated today.

More recent, a free vote, which means all cabinet and all parliamentary secretaries in the governing party, would have killed the legislation at second reading. That is how this could have been avoided.

I want to talk a little about that. The government put our a document last week on parliamentary reform. I looked through that little booklet and I was shocked at what I saw. The document is from the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. It is entitled, “First Annual Report on Democratic Reform”. What a joke. The things the government has pointed to as being changes it has made to make this place more democratic are exactly the opposite to what in reality has happened. However, there are some things of interest in there.

For example, it talks about how often the government has used the one line whip, the two line whip and the three line whip. I want to explain that. A one line whip is when the government says that it is a completely free vote. A two line whip is when the backbenchers can vote freely on the issue but cabinet and parliamentary secretaries must toe the government line. A three line vote is when all members of the Liberal Party are expected to toe the government line.

The government's own numbers in the document say that there were zero one line votes. That means no free votes whatsoever in the time that was documented in this report. Eighty-two of the votes were two line votes, including the marriage bill vote. That means that half of the Liberal caucus members are not free to represent their constituents on the important issue of marriage, cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries. A three line whip was used 18% of the time. There was not one single free vote on government legislation.

I want to go to my third point. Where do we go from here? I want to say without a doubt, even if this bill passes tomorrow, which it probably will, that is not the end of the issue. The Conservative Party and the Leader of the Conservative Party are committed to bringing this back to the House when we form the government and we will have a truly free vote on this issue.

We know, as I have said before, that about two-thirds of Canadians support the option where marriage is retained as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Legal civil unions in Canada give all the rights that married couples have to those who want to be involved in a civil union. That is what we will put before the House. We will put options before the House and there will be a free vote.

Under a Conservative government I fully believe same sex marriage will be struck down and we will move on to become a country where we have marriage enshrined as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am not even sure the last question deserves an answer. However, it annoys me that bills as important as Bill C-48 and Bill C-38 would come to the House without notice and be voted on while I was having dinner. I came back to the House. I have been in the House more often than that member.

The government ought to be responsible and take its duty seriously. Bill C-48 has no plan, it has nothing. How many housing units were build by the government in 11 years? There were very little for the money spent. The Liberals spent $1 billion with not a house being built.

There are more people living in poverty today than 11 years ago. There are more people homeless on the street while the government has been in office. That is something to be noted.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite interesting that this member would be concerned about how much it costs to operate this House. This bill needs to be opposed and the costs should be put in the background.

Where was this member when this House was being filibustered by his own party for days on end, when they took away supply days because they were not prepared to face a confidence motion? The Liberals went for a week or more trying to skirt that issue, filibustering on their own committee reports.

What was that costing per hour, and what was the purpose of that, except to cling to power at all costs? What about spending $4.6 billion? We will wait to see what the cost will be for the little side deal that was made to invoke closure over the last little while. There may be some consideration coming out sooner. They blow billions of dollars and they are afraid to keep this House open a little longer so they can hear responsible arguments on Bill C-38.

As far as the committee is concerned, what happened to the Prime Minister's promise to keep the committee going? We would not have to be sitting here if the Prime Minister had kept his promise to have broad consultations in committee, allow the committee to have more hearings, and allow positive injections. The reason we are still sitting is because of the member opposite who voted for this House to be extended without notice.

What happened when the Liberals took away our supply day motions, and when they lost the confidence of this House indirectly? They had a constitutional obligation to bring the issue of confidence before this House, but they used a week because it was not convenient for the Prime Minister. He flew around the country and gave out goodies, spent money, and used the machinery of power and government jets when he had no authority and no constitutional basis to do that. He did that simply to cling to power illegitimately and to legitimize government, and that was wrong.

As far as marriage is concerned, if the hon. member would listen very closely, it is the potential to procreate, and one lady and one man have the potential to procreate naturally, biologically, and not otherwise. That is the phrase “potential to procreate”. I would say that there is more to this issue than a few dollars and the machinations of clinging to power at all costs.

We should not be here at all. This bill should be in committee. This bill should not be here. We are in a democracy and ought to be experiencing it, but senior parliamentarians fail to see that and they ought to know better, but they do not.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be taking a different tack tonight. I will look at the process that has led us to be facing Bill C-38 at report stage and closure.

I must say, in respect of the bill itself, that marriage essentially is the union of two people, a man and a woman, who consummate the relationship with sexual relations with the potential to procreate. Marriage has well been said to be something more than a contract, either religious or civil, to be an institution, and it should remain that way. For the Liberal Party, it is more about politics, power and arrogance than it is about the essence of Bill C-38.

The government was prepared to make deals to keep its own members on side by promising broad committee hearings and not introducing the bill past report stage and third reading until fall. Then, when the Liberals were able to make a bigger deal, they decided to proceed to ram the bill through both stages. There will be a price for such an action and the Prime Minister and his enforcers shall pay the ultimate price at the ballot box.

Surely, the public at large will not let them get away with this. For those in the Liberal Party who oppose Bill C-38, the marriage bill, but voted with the government in a sneak manoeuvre to pass Bill C-48, the NDP budget bill, without notice, can certainly talk the talk, but they fall far short of walking the walk.

Let me speak briefly about procedures being used in this House that preclude the giving of notice. I could hardly believe that in a democracy, in a free and democratic country like Canada, the governing party would resort to procedures that would achieve their end by means of subterfuge and subtleness.

Surely, on an important issue like the NDP budget and Bill C-38, the government should at the very least provide notice of its intention and face the issue fair and square, so that the representatives of the people of Canada can make their views known.

Instead, what did the Liberals did? According to a Canadian Press report of June 25, by 8:30 p.m. Thursday last week, the Liberals were hiding out in the government lobby with one MP stating that the Liberals were going to bushwhack the Conservatives. I am sorry for the confused logic. It is really an affront and it is a bushwhacking of democracy.

I left the House at around 9:00 p.m. to have supper with my wife. Before I was finished supper, and without notice, Bill C-48 was up for a vote. Something as important as a budget vote was being snuck through the House. In all of my life, I have never heard or seen anything like it. The Liberals could not hijack democracy without the complicity of the NDP and the Bloc.

It is understandable that the NDP would engage in a procedure such as this as the leader himself asked if putting aside corruption, would the Minister of Finance change the budget? The NDP were prepared to make a deal regardless of the tactics or the manners of the government.

However, the Bloc, who opposed the NDP budget, Bill C-48, had nothing to gain or lose by the vote being taken on Thursday or on Monday, when we had a full contingent of our members in the House. To agree to Bill C-48 being placed before the House without notice was either intentional mischief or done for consideration of some kind. I can see no other rational conclusion. In either case, such actions are odious and any trust on my part from here on in will have to be earned.

All these steps were taken to force Bill C-38 to remain on its own, undressed, in full view of closure motions, limits on debate, and the concurrence of three parties to shove it through. Then on a foundation that it accepts important and significant matters, the government disposes it without notice given to the representatives of the people of Canada. That is wrong.

Any debate in this circumstance, in this context, is a farce and simply a matter of the government trying to appear magnanimous when it knows full well, it is about to drop the hammer to close matters off, as we just witnessed in this House tonight. I find this offensive. The fix, as they say, is in.

Indeed, this type of conduct may be what is necessary to awaken a sleeping giant. Those who agree with Bill C-38 and whose views will be made known in the ballot box in the next election will find out who is the ultimate judge in this particular case.

The Saskatoon Star Phoenix , on June 25, stated with reference to the government's conduct that “Thursday was the third time such a stunt was used in Canada's history”, and a stunt it was. I doubt it was ever used in such an important and significant a situation as a budget bill and a bill that redefines the definition of marriage. Obviously, it has never been done in this context. This is an all-time first and an all-time low in terms of its use in the history of this great country we call Canada.

Let us have a look at what brought us here today. Last week on Thursday morning, under Standing Order 57, a minister of the Crown served notice that debate with respect to extending the sitting of this House should not be further adjourned, with the provision that no member shall be allowed to rise to speak after 8:00 p.m., when a vote was held with respect to this motion. To put it simply, it was a closure notice with a time limit on speeches on an important issue such as we face here today. That was wrong and the government will pay the price for that.

Let us have a look at the motion itself, and I spoke to it the other day. The motion was prefaced by saying “notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice”. In other words, it was overriding anything that could stand in the way of the motion by way of Standing Order or usual practices. We put those aside. What does the motion go on to say? Essentially, that the sitting would continue until a minister of the Crown proposed, without notice, a motion to adjourn.

In other words, a minister could unilaterally have this House adjourn at any time without notice. It has come to this. What if anything or is there anything the government might not do to achieve its end? This seemed to me to be a heavy-handed approach and something one would not expect in this country.

This stunt, as referred to in the Star Phoenix , took place when the NDP, the Liberals, and the Bloc agreed that the Minister could propose to pass Bill C-48 without notice, without debate or amendment.

The government dispensed with the Standing Orders and usual practices to its advantage in circumstances that the Standing Orders were never intended to be used. It is in these circumstances, with this play of characters in office, that Bill C-38 finds itself.

What hope is there for those who oppose its passage? The hope is in the ballot box where they will have an opportunity to remove these characters from office.

The government tried to tie Bill C-48 to this bill in case it needed to apply to the Speaker for extension of the sittings, but then decoupled it when they and the sneaky, no-notice NDP budget Bill C-48 was voted in, in the middle of the night last Thursday.

Father Raymond J. de Souza said, “When holding unto office becomes the beginning and end of all activity, there are no more politics, just the machinations of power”. He went on to say that the corruption of our politics is now complete.

He refers to an article in the Toronto Sun that states, “--the time has come to cool the fury in Parliament, to ease the pressure on the Prime Minister to resort to seedy vote buying”. He says that Canada's largest circulation newspaper and ardent supporter of the Liberal Party concludes that the Prime Minister is engaged in seedy behaviour but excuses it on the grounds that otherwise he would be defeated by the opposition. It is all about power and if a little seedy vote buying is necessary, so be it.

He says what is cynicism in politics? It is the belief that politics is not about the common good, nor what one sincerely believes is right for the country, but only what is personally advantageous to the office holder. It is a Prime Minister's Chief of Staff discussing how one could go about trading offices for votes without officially trading offices for votes.

The mockery of the process of Bill C-38 in committee has caused the Liberal member for London—Fanshawe, to his credit, to leave the party and sit as an independent. Why? Because he knew what the Prime Minister promised, he would not deliver.

He observed what we did, the tricky procedural moves in committee such as removing Liberal MPs in exchange for others who would vote in correct ways, having members leave a meeting to cause it to adjourn for lack of quorum, calling witnesses in batches of four on very short notice, limiting witnesses to be called, and heavily stacking the Liberal committee members and the witnesses in favour of same sex marriage. Is this evidence of the Prime Minister's solemn word for full, fair and meaningful public hearings? Of course not.

The committee was asked to work to an unnecessary and premature deadline to report to the House. The member went on to state that witnesses were being given inadequate notice to appear at committee hearing and some have been rudely treated when they have attended. He said that the process as it was unfolding was unfair and perfunctory at best, and that it was not what he agreed to as a proper democratic consultation on such a major piece of legislation as the proposed definition of marriage. He added that in his view, the government had no democratic mandate from the people of Canada to redefine marriage.

I wish to conclude with Chantal Hébert's comments in the Toronto Star which could well be prophetic. She said:

Given the lengths to which [the Prime Minister] and his team have gone just to prolong the life of their minority government for a few more months, one has to wonder how many more ethical niceties they would dispense with--

Having heard [the Prime Minister's] chief-of-staff Tim Murphy nod and wink and dress up the Liberal window with future government considerations, can anyone doubt that this is an administration that is just as likely to live and die by the rule that the end justifies the means?

The democratic deficit [the Prime Minister] so likes to wax lyrical about has been compounded into an ethical one. And past sins of omission and/or commission have been overshadowed by current, in-your-face transgressions...It is a malaise that permeates the upper reaches of the government.

So much for the loyalty of the country. Anything the Prime Minister said suggesting that he encouraged a full debate on Bill C-38 in these sittings was, simply put, hogwash. The price the Prime Minister will pay will be paid at the ballot box. He cannot get away with such treachery as we witnessed in the House for this long. The voters will see to it. Marriage should be defined as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others with no exceptions, no amendments, period.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Minister for Internal Trade]

Mr Speaker, I wish to state that an agreement has been reached under Standing Order 78(2) with respect to the deliberations at report stage and third reading of C-38, an act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes. Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(2), I move, seconded by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, the following motion:

That, in relation to Bill C-38, an act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes, not more than one further hour shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage of the bill and not more than eight hours shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill and, at the expiry of the time provided for in this order for the consideration of the report stage and at the expiry of the time provided for in this order for the consideration for the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purposes of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put and disposed of forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Minister for Internal Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-38 at report stage.

This bill is of indisputable importance, given its nature and the interest is has generated since it was introduced in this House. The subject matter of the bill sparked an interest before the government ever presented it. First the government referred the issue to the Supreme Court of Canada for its advice, which it gave last year. The government used that advice in drafting the bill, which it then introduced in this House.

I want to take this opportunity to state my intention to vote in favour of this bill. Some who have been following this debate will recall that I have always believed in human rights and, accordingly, have always voted for human rights and always will. In fact, the issue had been raised in this House by the hon. member for Hochelaga through a private member's bill. I was one of those in this House who voted in favour of the bill. Some will also recall that votes were held on this subject in 1999. I voted in favour of civil marriage for same sex couples, believing at the time, as I do now, that it was an issue of human rights and equality. I will continue to vote that way because I sincerely believe this is about human rights and equality.

After the court handed down its ruling, the government felt that this bill should reflect a balance between rights and freedom of religion. Bill C-38 does. I am happy to see that, during consideration in committee, various amendments were proposed, one of which was adopted. Again today, there was unanimous consent to adopt another amendment in order to reinforce this issue of freedom of religion. Once this bill becomes law, we must ensure that religious officials are not forced to celebrate marriages for same sex couples. There must not be any consequences if they do not wish to recognize such marriages, if this goes against their beliefs.

We are therefore protecting freedom of religion and equality. As a matter of fact, this is what legislators do. We are, above all, legislators. We are responsible for the contractual, legal and civil aspect of marriage. We are fulfilling our responsibilities in this bill. We are ensuring that, in civil and contractual terms, the legislator is complying with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and, as eight or nine courts in Canada have ruled, the need to ensure equality. When this bill becomes law, the right of same sex partners to marry will be recognized throughout Canada.

We are not responsible for the spiritual or religious aspect of marriage; religious and spiritual groups bear that responsibility. By protecting the ability of religions to say yes or no and by exempting them from any negative consequences, we are respecting this freedom of religion. Thanks to this balance, most Canadians agree with what the government is proposing and what the Canadian Parliament will soon pass, we hope. If so, the Marriage Act will be amended to recognize same sex couples.

So this is what it is about. We have still had lengthy debates. In the end, the country as a whole has been involved in the debate for a while now, for more than two years, since the various courts, starting with British Columbia, then Quebec and the other provinces, gave rulings.

At this point, all the arguments had been heard over and over. We are also in a situation where Parliament has extended its sitting in order to deal with this bill. I think it was appropriate to do so.

That reflects the will of a majority of members of this House. Given that all the arguments have been heard and amendments to the bill have been made in committee or at report stage here in the House, strengthening and protecting what people wanted strengthened and protected, I think it is time to move on.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned a point that a number of his colleagues have mentioned about a number of situations in the courts where people have been attacked for religious freedoms and other such reasons. A number of members mentioned the same particular cases.

I would like to ask the member what his party's suggestions are to deal with this. Bill C-38 has not passed yet, so it is not this bill that is the problem. What are the suggestions of the Conservative Party to correct those elements of those people that have been attacked unfairly, as the Conservatives are suggesting?

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

No, I am not kidding. The PM assured members of his own party that that would not be the case. But in an effort to retain his own integrity, one member walked.

Another thing that I have heard tonight that strikes me as a bit odd is that the Prime Minister suggests this is a violation of human rights. We know it is not a violation of human rights, but let us assume the Prime Minister's position for a moment. My hon. colleague earlier this evening said that if the Prime Minister is correct in his assumption, how can he support 33 human rights violators in his caucus? That is not democracy; that is hypocrisy.

No internationally recognized human rights document has ever suggested that there is a right to same sex marriage. I have searched everywhere and I cannot find one. I challenge the government to produce such a document. They cannot.

As well, attempts to pursue same sex marriage as an international human right have failed. In 1998, the European court of justice held that stable relationships between two persons of the same sex are not regarded as equivalent to marriage. That does not mean they are not equal, because we have already pointed out the difference between equal and being different. My wife and I are different, and thank goodness, she looks a lot better than I do, but we are equal.

In 1996, the New Zealand court of appeal rejected the recognition of same sex marriage, and this is the important part, despite the fact that New Zealand's bill of rights prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. When the New Zealand decision was challenged before the United Nations human rights commission as a violation of the international covenant on civil and political rights, the United Nations ruled that there was no case for discrimination simply on the basis of refusing to marry homosexual couples. In fact, to this date no international human rights body and no national supreme court has ever found that there is a human right to same sex marriage. The only courts that we talk about in the House are provincial or state level in Canada and the United States.

Why have the hours been extended for this national emergency? Surely, the hundreds of thousands of Canadians in poverty may have a different opinion of what is a crisis. The automotive industry in Ontario and the forestry industry in Ontario are in crisis, but we did not extend hours to deal with their problems. Here is the crux. This Liberal government has messed up health care so badly in Canada that a court has ruled that it is now a human rights violation because Canadians cannot get care in time. Are we talking about that tonight? Are we talking about that tomorrow? We asked for an emergency debate on some of these issues and were denied.

I am pleased, to be quite honest, to represent the vast majority of my riding of Cambridge and North Dumfries, but I do want to acknowledge and respect those who wrote to me and preferred that I vote differently. I want them to know that I have listened to everything they have said. I have read their e-mails, I have sincerely and sensitively spent hours contemplating their opinions, and I have concluded that this comes down to being about the word “marriage”. The Conservative Party has clearly said that there is no doubt that we need to extend equal rights and benefits to all Canadians. In fact, when I questioned those who were strongly against Bill C-38 and asked how they felt about equal rights for gay marriages and gay relationships, they said there was no problem. That is the Canadian way and that is the way we feel. However, the issue comes down to the word “marriage”. We have no problem extending full and equal rights to all Canadians, but forcing such a redirection of society by a political party, the social engineering that is so common in dictatorships, well, that is exactly what I am saying about Mr. Phony. Politics is the art of compromise and we need to compromise.

I would like to close by reading a letter I received from a constituent, not in my riding but from another riding whose member is not listening. She writes:

If I may, I would like to give you my opinion on C38 as well, as part of a gay couple living in Ontario. We firmly believe that you and the conservative party should vote against it and we truly hope that this will be the downfall of the federal liberals for many reasons.

...we do not, nor ever have we believed that the definition of the word marriage should be changed in any capacity. What we simply asked for is the right to have a civil union that is equal to the rights granted by civil marriage. I don't think...gay couples understand that it really doesn't matter what it's called in order to cement [the relationship]. ...that is simply semantics.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of examples of being different but equal in Canada.

Quebec is a province that has a distinct society clause. It says that it is different, but it is very much equal. Whether they are in Quebec, Ontario or my province of British Columbia, Canadians are equal, but they can be distinct. I gave the example of men and women. They are very distinctly different but very equal. We need to respect all Canadians' freedoms. Even if we are different, we can be equal.

One of the constitutional experts who spoke to us, David Brown, said that in the coming years where this is going to take us is an attack on the freedom of speech and access to facilities. We have heard how the Knights of Columbus were set up and were under attack. Mr. Kempling was under attack. Fred Henry was under attack. We heard from some of the members. I am hearing from some of them right now with a bit of heckling from the corner.

We heard the questions,“Have you ever been forced to consummate a marriage between same sex couples? Have you ever been forced to do that and had a consequence?” The answer that Mr. Brown gave was that Bill C-38 is not law yet. He said that will happen. Faith based schools will be forced to teach a curriculum or they will lose their provincial funding. The churches will lose their charitable status.

We are going down a road that will change Canada as we know it. We need to oppose Bill C-38. We need to send it back and look at an alternative way of providing the same benefits and rights to Canadians in same sex relationships, and it cannot be marriage.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that issue is one of the salient points of this debate.

I have had constituents say that they will not get married in Canada if Bill C-38 goes through, that they will go to a country that presents the traditional definition of marriage.

If this bill goes through, there are questions as to whether same sex marriages will be recognized in the rest of the world. I do not think so. Canada will be to the far left on social issues, more than any other country in the world. Will these marriages be recognized? I think the traditional definition of opposite sex will be, but I have heard from a number of Canadians who are very concerned about having a traditional marriage here in Canada and are talking seriously about going outside the country. That is a real concern.

One of those was a new Canadian from Romania. She left communist Romania a number of years ago and came to Canada and was very excited to be here. She is saying now it is frightening her because we are heading in a direction where religious freedoms, personal freedoms and freedom of speech are being curtailed and taken away. She is very concerned about the direction in which Canada is heading.

It is our responsibility to provide freedom of speech and freedom of religion. We are not getting that with Bill C-38. We are heading down the wrong path.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I am sorry but I have the most wonderful woman. We have five children, four boys and a girl. Girls are totally different from boys. It has been a wonderful experience in how they think, what they do and how they relate to one another. What a wonderful privilege it has been for me to experience not only dealing with a wonderful wife, but also with a girl and boys and experiencing how different they are. It makes me fuller as a person. The human species is not complete unless we have the experience of both male and female relationships. I am really honoured by the experience I have had in raising my children.

My five children are grown. The youngest is my daughter who is expecting a baby any day. I am here to protect the traditional values of marriage. I would like to be with my daughter. I am hoping I will be there when she delivers her first baby, but I am here to represent my constituency and I have my daughter's blessing.

I contacted my riding of Langley and asked my constituents how they want me to vote on this. I told them that I personally believed in the traditional definition but that I would represent my constituents. I was overwhelmed with the response. We received thousands of responses from the residents of Langley and 96% of them said that they wanted me to support the traditional definition of marriage. They also wanted me to provide the same benefits to same sex relationships and to ensure that religious freedoms were protected in Canada. That is why I was honoured and gladly supported the Conservative position to do those three things.

Religious freedoms are not being protected in Bill C-38, which is why we brought forward amendments. I also want to bring to the attention of the House that I was on the marriage committee. Every party that was represented on the marriage committee acknowledged that religious freedoms would not be protected the way Bill C-38 is presented to the House. Every party, except for the NDP, provided amendments to Bill C-38 acknowledging that it would not protect Canadians' freedom of religion. Unfortunately, those amendments were ruled out of order, which is why we are here tonight debating and supporting these amendments that will try to make a horrible bill somewhat better to guarantee religious rights in Canada.

I want to go back into some history and the reason we are here today. We have heard time and time again that there has been adequate public input and adequate debate on Bill C-38. The Liberals, the NDP and the separatists got together to get it through. In the 37th Parliament we had a subcommittee of the justice committee that wanted to look into this to see how it would handle same sex relationships.

The committee did travel. It went to a number of different cities. It heard from 467 witnesses. We have heard that the report was cut short. We never received a report, but we have also heard verbally from some of the people who were involved that there was a consensus. The consensus was that the best way to deal with the same sex relationships, guaranteeing them exactly the same rights and benefits, was through a civil union. That was what the committee heard. Unfortunately, there is not a written report so we have to take the word of those who were there and witnessed that to this House.

From that, what we have is a bill from the government, its number one piece of legislation to destroy traditional marriage. The government came up with Bill C-38, the same sex marriage bill. The government created a committee. Normally legislation would come to this House and would go to the justice committee, which is what was expected. But the Prime Minister created a special legislative committee after consultation with certain members of his caucus. The government created a legislative committee. It limited the travel. It limited the amount of input that could be given, and limited the number of witnesses. Why would the Prime Minister come up with this special committee that would limit debate?

It gets worse. This committee that supported the number one piece of legislation for the Liberal government was stacked with members of the Liberal Party. The number one qualification for this committee was the government's bill had to be supported. There was no member of the Liberal Party who opposed the bill on that committee. Those members had to support the government bill. It was the same for the NDP members. The only members who were permitted on that committee who were open-minded, who listened to the witnesses, were from the Conservative Party. We worked hard. There was no travel. One of the parliamentary secretaries would beat on the procedure book saying that certain things could not be done, that they were out of order. He raised points of order, and on and on with interruptions and intimidation. That committee was a fraud, a travesty, a sham. It did not give Canadians any opportunity to speak freely and the number of speakers was limited.

The Conservative justice critic, the member for Provencher, worked hard. The government limited the number of witnesses to 41 and that critic managed to add another 22 witnesses. The member for London—Fanshawe left the Liberals out of disgust. He just could not take it any more. He spoke about an hour ago about the promises made by the Prime Minister and how those promises were broken. Bishop Fred Henry, Mr. Kempling, and a number of witnesses were deliberately withheld from that committee. The justice critic is with us tonight, and I want to give him credit for the hard word that he did. Through his hard work we did get some input, but 43 witnesses were rammed through in a very short period of time.

I kept asking the witnesses where this was going to take us and what the difference is between a civil union and marriage. If same sex relationships can be given exactly the same rights and benefits, what is inferior? I heard that different is not equal. That is right. Men and women are different, but they are equal, so different can be equal. It is not inferior. Civil union can be equal, but it is different. I never heard one of the witnesses who supported the government's bill, in fact any of the witnesses, who were able to tell me what is inferior about a civil union.

Two years ago that was the consensus of the committee and that is still the consensus of Canadians. Two-thirds of Canadians want civil unions with the same rights and benefits, and to protect the traditional definition.

I want to know where this is going to take us over the next five or 10 years. I am very concerned where this is taking Canada.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member should be very careful about attributing information that is not quite right. He mentioned that the amendments being put forward here were somehow by government members. In fact, out of the seven motions to amend at report stage, five of them are by his own party, one is by an independent and the other one is by me to withdraw a clause, not to add anything. The member should be very careful about his facts on this matter.

He further suggests that somehow people are being coerced. I have spoken out on behalf of the family and defended marriage and will vote against Bill C-38 for a third time. However in all honesty I have never heard or felt any pressure by anyone. In fact, the member well knows that it is against the rules of Parliament to try to influence a member's vote, and that would be under a matter of privilege.

The member reacted to something I said in an earlier question and I think we should let this debate go a little bit further. If Bill C-38 did not exist and the other two provinces and two territories just made their copycat decisions, the common law would be across Canada and the definition of marriage would be any two persons to the exclusion of all others. There is no difference between that and Bill C-38 passing.

The question really comes down to what the resolution is. We have the courts changing it but we know there should have been appeals. At the Ontario Court of Appeal, the Halpern decision trashed marriage. We did not appeal that and I want to know why we did not do it? How will we ensure that the line in the sand, being the protection of religious rights and freedoms, will not be subject to the same kind of attack by the courts?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting. Today a number of members suggested that some Liberal members should have voted against Bill C-48. That would have brought down the government down and they would not have had to deal with Bill C-38 until some other time. That does not change the common law definition that is in eight provinces and one territory already. Quite frankly, it is time to address the problem more frontally.

The problem is we have a situation of court made law. I will get into that hopefully when I speak at third reading. Since we are speaking about the report stage motions under Group No. 1, could the member name one of the amendments proposed in this group?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for his comments in the House here today. He is doing a fine job on behalf of the people of Regina—Qu'Appelle.

Originally, 34 Liberals voted against Bill C-38. One is now an independent member of Parliament in the House. We heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the MInister of Justice earlier today say that cabinet had to be whipped in order to support Bill C-38 because it was a human right.

Why does the Liberal government now support 33 human rights violators in its caucus?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question. Does anyone here remember what Richard Rich accomplished as Attorney-General for Wales? Probably not. Father Raymond de Souza asked that question in his most recent article.

Many people remember Richard Rich not for what he did as attorney general, but rather as a stark contrast to the life of St. Thomas More. St. Thomas More stood by his principles, acted according to his conscience and paid the ultimate price for choosing his conscience before his political master. For choosing his political master before his conscience, Richard Rich was rewarded with the 16th century equivalent of a cabinet position.

Father Raymond de Souza relates a story about the film on the life of St. Thomas More. As St. Thomas is led up to the gallows, he turns to Rich and, seeing the insignia for Wales on his neck, says the following, “It does not profit a man if he gain the entire world but loses his soul. But for Wales, Richard?”

Today we can ask ourselves, “But for a cabinet spot in the Liberal government?”

We cannot discuss Bill C-38 without discussing the Liberals' aversion to democracy. We are sitting here today, a week after the House was supposed to rise, debating this issue due to the heavy-handedness on the part of the Liberal government. The Liberals trampled over parliamentary democracy last week by extending the sittings of this House to ram through their radical position on marriage. They had to ram it through, because they know that the vast majority of Canadians do not want to see the definition of marriage changed.

I sat in on a committee hearing for Bill C-38. I saw at first hand how the Prime Minister's idea of a fair and open committee operates.

We heard dozens of groups opposed to homosexual marriage complain that they were given little to no notice. They were even unable to get their documents translated in time and therefore were often prevented from tabling their evidence in time for the hearing. I also saw government members badgering witnesses and berating them, in the words of a former Liberal MP, for being opposed to the legislation.

The nature of the committee itself was also manipulated to ensure speedy passage. The committee was struck only to look at the technical aspects of the bill. Its members were not even allowed to hear evidence regarding the substance of the bill or how the bill might impact society.

There were also many reports that those groups opposed to Bill C-38 were not given funding for their travel expenses and other expenses incurred in coming to testify before the committee, but many groups who were in favour of the government's position were provided that funding. There is a clear imbalance there.

Upwards of 30 Liberal MPs are currently stating their opposition to this legislation. Logic would dictate that the Liberal whip would allow even just one pro-traditional marriage member to sit on that committee, but again, we know that there was not.

Another example of how the Liberals hate democracy is the fact that the entire Liberal cabinet is being whipped on this issue. Cabinet ministers have wrestled with their consciences and their consciences have lost. The lure of the cabinet car and the fierce stick of the Prime Minister's Office pounded their consciences into submission. I hope they put up a good fight.

Canadians have already seen the rights of religious groups and others being infringed. Religious institutions are already under attack. Individual Canadians have already been attacked for their own views on this subject. I can give members a few examples.

First, there is the case of a British Columbia teacher. Exercising his freedom of speech, he wrote several letters to the editor about this subject. In return, his teaching licence was suspended. This is an example of freedom of speech being infringed. Bill C-38 does nothing to protect individuals like this one in the example I cite.

Second, there is a move in Ontario to remove the biological information of parents from birth certifications. Can members imagine children not knowing who their biological parents are?

I would like to quote Dr. Margaret Somerville, because the central question we are talking about here is whether marriage is still connected to the potential to have and raise children and to provide a stable environment for those children, or whether it is simply connected with the personal needs of two adults in a close relationship.

Dr. Somerville states:

The crucial question is: should marriage be primarily a child-centred institution or an adult-centred one? The answer will decide who takes priority when there is an irreconcilable conflict between the interests of a child and the claims of adults. Those who believe that children need and have a right to both a mother and a father, preferably their own biological parents, oppose same-sex marriage because...it would mean that marriage could not continue to institutionalize and symbolize the inherently procreative capacity between the partners; that is, it could not be primarily child-centred.

In short, accepting same-sex marriage necessarily means...abolishing the norm that children...have a prima facie right to know and be raised within their own biological family by their mother and father. Carefully restricted, governed and justified exceptions to this norm, such as adoption, are essential. But abolishing the norm would have far-reaching impact.

We also know of the case of the Knights of Columbus also in British Columbia. It is being harassed because it refuses to compromise its own conscience and rent a hall out to a homosexual couple. Its religious beliefs do not allow them to rent it out and it is being persecuted for following their faith.

There is also the case of Bishop Fred Henry. He dared to speak out against homosexual marriage and was rewarded by having the charitable status of his church threatened. Here is Bishop Henry's assessment of the so-called protection of religious institutions portion of the bill:

The recent Supreme Court decision bows in the direction of religious freedom. However, it adds a disturbing qualifier to its decision, namely, the statement that, “Absent unique circumstances with respect to which the Court will not speculate, the guarantee of religious freedom in s. 2(a) of the Charter is broad enough to protect religious officials...

When you read this carefully, you don't have to be a lawyer to recognize an open door. Particular circumstances might lead to some future court legitimately trying to force religious officials to perform these ceremonies against their conscience, though the justice system declined to speculate on what those circumstances might be. It's disquieting that the court would even raise the possibility.

Bill C-38 not only does not close the door; as a matter of fact, it fails in a number of particular ways to support religious freedom.

He lists them:

One, it fails to recognize, protect, and reaffirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman, which the Supreme Court of Canada did not suggest was contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, nor did it suggest that a redefinition of marriage was necessary to conform to the charter.

Two, it fails to affirm cooperation with the provincial and territorial governments to enact the necessary legislation and regulations to ensure full protection for freedom of conscience and religion so Canadians are not compelled to act contrary to their conscience and religion.

Three, it fails to affirm cooperation with the provincial and territorial governments to ensure all leaders and members of faith groups are free everywhere in Canada to teach and preach on marriage and also on homosexuality, as is consistent with their conscience and religion.

Four, it fails to affirm cooperation with provincial and territorial governments to ensure that in addition to sacred places, all facilities owned or rented by an organization that is identified with a particular faith group are protected from compulsory use and preparations for or celebrations related to marriage ceremonies contrary to that faith.

Five, it fails to affirm cooperation with provincial and territorial governments to ensure all civil as well as religious officials who witness marriages in Canada in every province and territory are protected from being compelled to assist when these are contrary to their conscience and religion.

Six, it fails to safeguard faith groups that do not accept the proposed redefinition of marriage from being penalized with respect to their charitable status.

Bishop Henry put it quite well. Those are major problems with the bill.

Now let us talk about the issue of human rights and the courts. Many people in the Liberal Party contend that this is a matter of human rights. Let us read what Justices McLachlin and Iaccobucci in the Supreme Court decision in 1996 mentioned about the idea that it was a human rights issue and that Parliament could not legislate statute law in violation of what the court said. The justices said:

It does not follow from the fact that a law passed by Parliament differs from a regime envisaged by the Court in the absence of a statutory scheme, that Parliament’s law is unconstitutional. Parliament may build on the Court’s decision, and develop a different scheme as long as it remains constitutional. Just as Parliament must respect the Court’s rulings, so the Court must respect Parliament’s determination that the judicial scheme can be improved. To insist on slavish conformity would belie the mutual respect that underpins the relationship between the courts and legislature that is so essential to our constitutional democracy.

That is what the justices said, that Parliament does not have an obligation to do whatever the courts say in the absence of statute law. Parliament can in fact enact that statute law. Yet we have still seen a growing number of Canadians being attacked for their religious beliefs.

In my home province of Saskatchewan marriage commissioners are being fired for their personal beliefs. The anti-democratic behaviour of the government, along with the failure to protect religious officials and ordinary Canadians from persecution from expressing their own personal beliefs is appalling.

I want voters to know that if they had elected an NDP member of Parliament, their MP would not vote according to his own conscience or according to the wishes of his constituents. He would vote the way his leader told him to. Anything the Liberals can do to be undemocratic, the NDP can do better. The leader of the NDP is forcing his MPs to toe the party line and endorse homosexual marriage.

Thankfully, the voters in my riding rejected that kind of heavy-handedness. I will vote according to the wishes of my constituents and according to my own conscience.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when the Ontario Court of Appeal decision came down and instantaneously changed the common law definition of marriage, at the same time there was no statutory definition of marriage in any statute of Canada. We actually went from 1999 on without a definition of marriage in federal law because it is in the common law.

The argument was made that we need to have Bill C-38 so we can normalize it right across the country, but while we have been working on this process, interestingly enough, now we have eight provinces and one territory doing this. The vast majority of the country is already there. It seems to me, and maybe the member wishes to comment, that Bill C-38 no longer serves a useful purpose. It probably should be withdrawn and we should let the courts continue to make the law.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

First of all, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the support from all members of the House, in my estimation, some 20% of eligible voters voted for the Liberal Party. It was 20% if we factor in the percentage that voted in the general election and the percentage that voted for the Liberals. The same is true for the NDP.

Based on the feedback we have had and the literal outpouring of concern by citizens right across the country through emails, petitions, phone calls, faxes and meetings, I contend that this is a big issue--I have been invited to a number of meetings and rallies--and it is an offence to the Canadian people to so ruin the democratic process that they are not listened to.

Furthermore, I venture to guess that the proportion of people in the Liberal Party who support this would be much closer to the proportion in the general population if they were actually able to represent the wishes of their constituents. I cannot believe that those who are ready to vote in favour of Bill C-38 are totally immune from these presentations.

I was asked about questions 41 and 42. First, why was the definition of marriage clearly upheld in 1999 but now is under attack? To me the answer is very simple, that is, the Liberals, and especially the Deputy Prime Minister, who is famous for that speech she made in 1999, did not speak from conviction at that time or else they would not have changed their convictions. I think that is basically the answer.

Why is the Prime Minister so determined to jam this bill through? I think it is simply because the Liberals know they are going to be punished at the polls if it is still on the books. They want to get it out of the way and hope that voters will forget. I trust, however, that the voters will remember and will say that they are going to turf these Liberals because they are doing the wrong thing here.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to address Bill C-38 in order to filibuster or obstruct Parliament, as some contend. I rise to speak in order to change the minds of those who would vote in favour of this bill.

I sincerely and profoundly want Bill C-38 defeated. I represent millions of Canadians who do not want this bill passed. I represent millions who believe that marriage is and should remain as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

It is undoubtedly unrealistic of me to expect that every member of Parliament will take a copy of my speech and before he or she goes to bed tonight will read and ponder what I am about to say. I probably kid myself into believing that each one will thoughtfully ask himself or herself the pertinent questions which I am going to pose.

Instead of restating the positions which I have already articulated in my previous speeches on this topic, I am going to ask a series of questions which I challenge others to answer honestly, to put aside prejudgments on these questions and to try desperately to think of these things on a deep level.

Here are the questions. They are not in any particular order. I just wrote them down as they came to mind.

Question 1: Am I ready to undo the traditions and teachings which have directed societies and nations over many millennia?

Question 2: Am I ready to contribute to a weakening of the family unit as it has come to be understood and sought after by generations of people in history?

Question 3: If I have a belief in God as taught by my religion, am I ready to go 180 degrees against the teaching of my religion?

Question 4: If I have no professed religious belief, am I ready to undo thousands of years of tradition and history?

Question 5: Why is it necessary to so profoundly offend the millions of Canadians who, from either a religious or non-religious basis, do not want to have the definition of marriage redefined?

Question 6: Have I read and studied with an open mind the hundreds of studies which show that children raised in families with their biological mother and father do best in all defined measurable categories?

Question 7: Do I really believe that it is in Canada's best interest to promote the increase of families which do not have a mother and father present for the development of the children?

Question 8: Am I ready to say to children brought into these homosexual unions that they may never know their biological roots, being denied forever the knowledge of either their biological father or mother?

Question 9: Am I ready to say to every person so raised that they do not have the right to determine their genetic heritage?

Question 10: Have I asked myself why in this debate the only questions of equality are for the equality of homosexuals, instead of the broader question of equality for all relationships, including non-sexual relationships?

Question 11: What are the actual benefits to society to have the traditional definition of marriage nullified?

Question 12: What benefit is there to the children involved in society as a whole if we transmit the message that fathers do not matter, or mothers do not matter?

Question 13: Is it really true that there are no consequences to a child being raised in a home where only one gender is represented in the parentage?

Question 14: Will this redefinition assist or hinder young people in gender identity issues?

Question 15: How will children in these relationships have any hope whatsoever of learning the roles of males and females when they are not being modelled for them?

Question 16: Why did members of the Liberal Party do a 180 degree reversal of their position of supporting the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of others, as demonstrated in their 1999 speeches and vote?

Question 17: Were the Liberals right then and wrong now, or were they wrong then and right now?

Question 18: Why would the Deputy Prime Minister, then minister of justice, speak so eloquently that the equality issues can be addressed without redefining marriage if she did not believe it?

Question 19: Is there some concern about the hidden agenda in the Liberal Party when it promised right before an election, “It is not the intention of this government to change the definition of marriage,” and then after the election do the precise opposite?

Question 20: Why will the Prime Minister not permit a free vote on this important issue for all members in his party, including cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries?

Question 21: Is it not important to hear the thousands of Canadians for whom this is a very important issue and to seek a compromise solution that avoids offending deeply so many good citizens of our country?

Question 22: Is it not a bit of a hollow promise on religious freedom if in the very vote on the issue Liberal members are not permitted to exercise their religious freedom and conviction?

Question 23: If their position on this bill is so right, then why can they not trust their members to vote correctly, without coercion?

Question 24: If this is truly a human rights issue and there are apparently some 30 or more members in cabinet or in parliamentary secretary positions in the government, why are these intolerant members permitted to continue in their positions?

Question 25: Why is the government giving false assurance of religious freedom when we already have a number of cases in which people with religious faith or leaders in religious organizations are being hauled before various tribunals and in some cases are being punished?

Question 26: Is there not a concern regarding the loss of individual religious freedom when this bill addresses only the apparent freedoms of religious organizations? I emphasize the words “individual religious freedom”.

Question 27: Is there not a concern with the fact that the Supreme Court, in its reference, ruled that religious freedom in the sense anticipated by the bill is not within the federal jurisdiction to grant?

Question 28: What about the marriage commissioners in British Columbia and Saskatchewan who have been given notice to solemnize same sex marriages or lose their credentials? What about their religious freedom?

Question 29: What about individuals like the teacher in B.C. who was suspended from his position solely on the charge of expressing his personal opinions in letters he wrote to newspapers?

Question 30: What about the individual in Saskatchewan who lost a case in which he was charged with quoting the scriptures?

Question 31: What about the Catholic school board that was forced to go against the teachings and beliefs of the church at a recent graduation ceremony?

Question 32: What about the mayor of a major Ontario city who was fined for not promoting a teaching that was against her religious beliefs?

Question 33: What about the religion based camp in Manitoba that was charged because it refused to go against the convictions and beliefs of its supporting members?

Question 34: Is it a concern that the democratic process is being trashed?

Question 35: Why are the million or so names on petitions presented in this House being ignored?

Question 36: Why are members of Parliament being bullied into voting opposite to the wishes of their constituents?

Question 37: Why was the justice committee of the last Parliament shut down before being permitted to report and the present special committee totally stacked with individuals on one side of the debate, having its work truncated in order to ram this legislation through?

Question 38: Why is this issue so urgent that it justifies an extended session of Parliament into the summer?

Question 39: Is part of the tactic to push it through quickly, using the excuse that members must get back to their commitments in their ridings and other parts of the country?

Question 40: Why is it so important to stifle the opposition to this bill?

Question 41: How come, in 1999 and previous votes, the traditional definition of marriage was clearly upheld and now, just a few years later, it is under attack?

Question 42: Why is the Prime Minister so determined to jam this bill through quickly? It is because he hopes the voters will forget by the time of the next election?

Question 43: If this approach in social policy is so defensible, why is there such fear that the voters of the country will react negatively against the Liberal government?

These are important questions and they demand honest answers. I fear that many members have been bullied or deceived into supporting this legislation. In my view, this legislation is wrong. We should do the country and its citizens a huge favour by defeating it and getting the solution to these problems right.

I urge all members to support the amendments which address these serious questions and to vote against Bill C-38. We must do what is right. We must defend the family, moms and dads and the social order which has stood the test of time and history. Let us not go down the wrong road at this time and then have to deal with the consequences in generations to come.

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the commitment of this government to see Bill C-38 passed quickly has saddened me. I must also say that I am very frustrated at the way this legislation was handled by the government, the NDP and the Bloc, and their willingness to ram it through before summer break.

Bill C-38 promotes values that go against my most fundamental principles, beliefs and convictions, and that is why I am opposing the redefinition of marriage and reiterating my support for the motion moved on June 8, 1999:

That, in the opinion of this 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.

We as legislators should consider the matter much more cautiously before changing the definition of marriage, a reality that is the foundation of our society. There are few arrangements more central to human survival than pair bonds and these unions are central to the development of human society.

Marriage varies considerably from culture to culture but the primary object of marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation and the raising of children in a traditional family environment. Therefore, if we allow same sex couples to join the institution of marriage, it will violate long held societal views that are rooted in religion, history and anthropology.

I feel extremely privileged to stand today in this noble institution to voice the concerns of the majority of my constituents of Nickel Belt. Although Canadians are against redefining marriage, they also recognize the rights of persons of the same sex who wish to form a couple but it is difficult to imagine that this same concept, the concept of marriage, can apply to two such different realities, namely heterosexual and same sex couples.

I recognize the wish of homosexuals to have their union recognized by the state in one form or another in order to assert their status as a couple and give it a name. I do not believe, however, that breaking down the concept of marriage represents any kind of social progress. Would it not be advisable to continue examining this matter rather than calling into question the definition of a reality that is considered untouchable, if not sacred, and justly so, by the majority of Canadians? Such a universal definition cannot be resolved in just a few months.

Since last fall, I have received thousands of letters, postcards, e-mails, faxes and phone calls from Canadians wishing to voice their strong opposition to the redefinition of the institution of marriage.

For Canadians seeking to redefine an institution that is the foundation of society, it is a lot more than a legal issue. This complex and crucial issue will not be resolved with Bill C-38 and if the House adopts legislation in accordance with the changes proposed in the bill, millions of Canadians will feel disgraced by their religious leaders who have not considered the basic aspect of the nature and meaning of marriage.

We often hear it said that the expression “separate but equal” cannot be applied to marriage. However, that is precisely what section 15 of the charter provides. It 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—” In other words, equality makes it possible to treat certain individuals differently but not unfairly. If same sex couples enjoy a legal benefit equal to that of heterosexual couples, the requirements of the charter are met.

We must recognize that the charter came into effect to guarantee individual rights in Canada and not to serve as a tool for social change. It is hard to believe that the definition of marriage could be discriminatory, when the practice is not.

This is a matter of public social ethics and not of the charter of rights. Many believe that the charter is a red herring in the issue of the institution of marriage.

Bill C-38 does not consider the ordinary citizen who has neither the means nor the political power of the strong homosexual lobby. With the attack focussed on the traditional definition of marriage, Canadians feel that they are being handed a hot potato and that the effects of such a choice on our society will be negative and unpredictable.

We obviously cannot fully address an issue as complex as the redefinition of marriage through the strict legal approach taken by the Supreme Court of Canada and reflected in the bill. The desire to improve the social position of homosexuals and the current heated debate in fact call upon us to look for new solutions but such a process cannot change the inescapable fact of human experience.

It is essential we do not forget that marriage between a man and a woman is a natural state of affairs in accordance with human constitution and the purpose of marriage. As I said before, this does not rule out same sex unions but they are not the same thing.

The sexual difference of the human race has always been reflected and recognized in marriage which, by granting a man and woman the status of a couple, provides for the procreation of the species. The findings of ethnologists, cultural anthropologists and historians show that throughout time worldwide, with few exceptions, from the most primitive to the most modern societies, heterosexual couples have received special recognition if not nearly sacred status.

Through various rituals practised by families, religions or the state or a combination of these three, humankind has always affirmed the crucial role that a man and woman in a couple play in building society by granting the couple special status and protection. Common law unions, which reflect a crisis in society and have repercussions on the institution of marriage, are subject to the same laws that the state applies to marriage and the family. In this way the state protects the rights of spouses and children.

It is very clear to me that this debate is not about individual rights but rather the common good of our society and the spiritual and physical well-being of our children and the future of Canadian families.

If homosexual marriage is legalized it becomes a norm. I am afraid it will inevitably lead to the trivialization of the institution of marriage and eventually to the deterioration of our societal fabric. There is no denial that the institution of marriage emphasizes the interest of every child, natural or adopted, to be raised as a first choice by a mother and a father.

This is why it is most surprising to note that the bill does not mention children. Even though Bill C-38 recognizes “Whereas marriage is a fundamental institution in Canadian society...and represents the foundation of family life for many Canadians”, this silence is both suggestive and disturbing.

As children are created by a woman and a man, they need both a mother and a father during the first years of their lives in order to develop normally. Normal development for a child can better originate in a stable family situation where the mother and the father occupy their traditional roles. Studies in sociology and psychology have confirmed this evidence.

We are living in an era where nobody's rights are more infringed upon than those of our children: the right to have two parents, the right to stability and the right to live in harmony with affection. Is it not more important to protect our children's rights and should we not be more preoccupied with those rights than the question of same sex marriage?

The General Assembly of the United Nations reminded the world in its Declaration of the Rights of the Child that “The child...shall grow up in the care and under the responsibility of his parents, in an atmosphere of affection and material security”. In this perspective, we ask ourselves how Bill C-38 would impact and what negative consequences it would have on our children.

It is our prime responsibility to defend the rights of those who do not have the ability to be part of this debate, the ones who will be most affected by these major changes on our society. It is fundamental that we protect our children who will be the first victims of this legislation.

The only positive aspect of this debate is that it forces us as individuals and collectively to reflect on an institution in crisis and on its role in society. Like it or not, heterosexual marriage, which consecrates the union of a man and a woman, is the very foundation of our society and of the family. Society owes its very existence to the family. The rapid pace of change in society today has, in a sense, blinded many people.

We must recognize that we should not play with a concept as important as marriage without more serious thought, in spite of the pressure to name the new social reality of same sex couples. It is essential for our society that the wisdom recorded by ethnologists and historians must not be tampered with lightly.

I find it very challenging to see how expanding the definition of civil marriage will benefit homosexuals. On the contrary, the public reaction to the redefinition of marriage could lead to a rejection much more profound than what this minority has experienced thus far.

[Pat O'Brien, Independent, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-38 for the third time now. Regrettably, the bill has continued to progress. Quite frankly, I believe the most democratic thing the government could do in this case would be to withdraw this legislation. It simply has no democratic mandate to proceed on this legislation.

In the last election, one year ago, we will all recall that the Supreme Court had not even rendered its judgment, had not even spoken to these very important questions. The government had no proposed legislation to lay before the electorate of Canada; therefore, the conclusion is obvious: it has no democratic mandate to proceed on this legislation. If the Prime Minister and the government had political courage and were prepared to do the democratic thing and the right thing, they would withdraw this legislation and they would put it before the people of Canada whenever next the government goes to the polls, and then Canadians could factor in this idea, this proposed redefinition of marriage, along with all the other public policy questions, and they could then render a judgment democratically. That is what ought to be done, but I do not expect that to be done.

I am opposed to Bill C-38 on two main points. First of all, I am opposed to the decision itself, and then I want to speak to and explain why I am opposed to the process.

On the decision itself, it simply boggles the mind why this government is charging ahead, determined to make a decision that flies in the face of common sense, that flies in the face of the clear majority opinion of most Canadians not to redefine marriage.

I was proud that on Monday past my wife Evelyn and I celebrated our 35th wedding anniversary.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring forward some areas about which we have not yet talked. However, the debate has been ongoing for quite some time and everything is pretty well covered.

I would like to point out though that my own personal values and beliefs in regard to this issue are very strongly faith based. I have good reasons to say that. I think most people would understand why I say it.

I am very pleased to belong to a group of individuals who saw the importance of faith based decision making, especially our forefathers who had the foresight to inscribe on our buildings that “he will have dominion from sea to sea”. I have no apologies to make for that and I will not. Many decisions that I do make are based on that very thing.

I would like to indicate though that I have found and discovered through my experiences in life, and I have a few years in now, that I have learned the importance more and more on various occasions as to what is good about a family that is defined as a mother, a father and children and why it is so essential that this unit remain strong and have the strength to carry on with daily turmoils.

It is obvious to me from my studies in history that when the family begins to crumble, society begins to crumble. In many cases whole nations and empires have crumbled due to the destruction of the family. It is essential that we work hard to keep that strong and existing.

I was in the education field for about 30 years. For a number of years, I was principal of a school of grade one to twelve. There were nearly 900 students every year in that school. I served not only as principal. Prior to that I spend some years as a guidance counsellor.

Let me assure the House that there were many times during those years that I was able to experience why it was so important and essential for a child to have access to a mother and a father. It was illustrated time and time again.

I remember one experience where I needed to pay a little more attention to what was happening in the school and in the social affairs of all the people who were involved. A young boy who was about eight was brought to my office because he was misbehaving poorly. With that many students, I was not aware of the history or the stories behind most of the students. However, I found out that this boy's father had died in an industrial accident when he was about four years old. He had been without a father for quite some time. His mother was doing an excellent job of raising a family, of caring for them as a single parent. She was one of the best as is true in many cases in a single parent situation.

On a number of occasions that eight year old was brought to my office for misbehaviour or other problems. I never knew enough about the history of his family to know that this might have some bearing on the difficulties he was having.

One day when he was sitting in the chair in my office, after having been brought in several times, I said to him that we had to do something, that he was getting into trouble all the time. I asked him what was going on with him. He looked at me, with tears in his eyes, and said, “Why do I not have a daddy like the rest of the kids?”. That made me sit in silence for a moment.

Here was a young fellow who was without a father. It was no fault of his own. It was no fault of anybody except a tragic accident had taken him away. That day it dawned on me how important it was to that young fellow to have a mom and a dad, how he could miss them and how it could play on his life.

The boy was constantly being teased and ribbed by small children, as they will without knowing the harm they are causing. They teased him for not having a dad. A lot of times they do not understand why parenthood and bringing children up in the proper way is so important. I had more and more occasion to start thinking about the situation in regard to the family unit.

I learned after 30 years that a solid family unit, with the love of a mother and a father, created the best situation possible to establish a strong family unit for the benefit and future of their kids. That is not taking away anything from single parents, single for whatever reason, who we worked with during those years and who did an excellent job.

However, I believe it is all about that. It is the children. They are entitled to be brought up in a family that has the love and care of a mother and the firm hand and understanding of a father. I think there is enough evidence. Studies have shown that those kinds of situations are good for the family unit which in turn makes it good for the community as well as for the country. It makes it strong. It is the base.

I would ask that we think about all these things when we come to legislation like this. One of the speakers from the Liberal Party, I believe from Scarborough, mentioned several times that there ought to be more debate on what the future implications of Bill C-38 could have on our children. I agree with him. It is something that has not been debated to any length and it should be carefully considered.

One of the other speakers pointed out time and again, this was not about rights. In fact, I do not know any country that mentions marriage as a right. It is about public policy and values. It is about what we as a society believe our country should be. Yes, the voice of the people should be heard. Not only do we want to listen to the debates in here and try to learn from each other, but it is essential as elected members of Parliament that we hear the voice of the constituents and that we represent them.

I am really pleased to be a member of a party that has a complete free vote on this issue instead of other parties that do not. I do not know how anyone could talk about this being about rights and equality but stifle their own members from having a free vote. That makes no sense to me. What is really puzzling is in 1999 a decision was made in regard to a motion on the definition of marriage. When the vote was taken, it passed by something like 215 to 55. A lot of the Liberals who are here today were of that group of people at that time who supported it. The now Deputy Prime Minister stated firmly:

I fundamentally do not believe that it is necessary to change the definition of marriage in order to accommodate the equality issues around same sex partners which now face us as Canadians.

I support the motion for maintaining the clear legal definition of marriage in Canada as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

A huge majority of that party agreed with that and they supported it in 1999. Then suddenly it became an equality rights issue. When they all believed originally that it was not necessary to change the definition to accommodate equality, now it is a different story. What in the world happened to those people to come to that conclusion?

If they were genuinely interested in equality, they would take a look at some of the situations in our Indian reserves and the lack of equality for the spouses in terms of property rights. We have talked about that a number of times in the House. I am sure the Speaker will remember, it was not too many years back that I brought up the opportunity to adopt an ombudsman for people on an Indian reserve because they did not have an ombudsman. Every Canadian has an ombudsman, but the Indian reserves do not. That is a lack of equality. Why is that not being addressed? Yet the Liberal government, which is pushing this issue as equality, turned down that very possibility of making something equal on the reserves.

It is really a very sad day that the Liberals recognize equality in this area when the real equality is that every child should have a mother and a father. We should concentrate on strengthening that unit.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. Both she and I are members from eastern Ontario. Would a Conservative government, should there be one and should this country be so unfortunate, revoke Bill C-38 if elected, and if so, would it use the notwithstanding clause to unmarry those married already?

[Randy White, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I often say that I wish the Liberals would respect us for what we are and not for what they want us to be. This comes to mind more and more when I hear issues like this one being debated in the House. I would like to ask my colleague about that particular aspect of Bill C-38.

We hear across the way, “The judges made us do this. This is something that is coming from the courts. We cannot stop it ourselves. It happens here because of this judge and that judge”. In many cases we all know it is probably politically motivated. I would like my colleague to clarify for those who are listening whether he believes this is politically motivated or foisted upon Canadian society by the courts and why.

[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.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the committee heard 60 some witnesses though we were not going to hear that many.

I heard the parliamentary secretary say we heard 400 and some witnesses. That was in another Parliament. As the hon. member knows, that committee was basically hijacked as it was hearing general testimony from coast to coast on whether the Canadian government should appeal the Ontario Court of Appeal ruling regarding the definition of marriage.

As we know, members who supported marriage were pulled off that committee and other Liberal members were inserted who opposed traditional marriage. We know the committee did not even render a report. That is of no benefit. We are in a new Parliament. This bill put before us changes what the word marriage means and we are not given ample time to study it.

The member has raised an important question. There are only two other countries in the world that have changed in law what the word marriage means, so we do not know yet the long term effects. We can hypothesize what the impact could be on changing an institution that predates Canada.

The committee heard testimony from many witnesses. On the protection of religious freedom, for example, I will read an excerpt:

The advance of social liberalism necessarily stirs anxieties about cultural and religious freedom. Bill C-38 promises that it won't break into the religious sanctuaries to coerce religious officials to solemnize marriages against their consciences. The fact that this legislation raises the spectre of such draconian action is telling.

I agree with that 100%. We do not know where this is going to lead when it comes to freedoms. We know, in the original B.C. decision on this issue, that Justice Pitfield ruled that marriage predates Canada. It predates Confederation. Not only is it not for a judge to change what the word “marriage” means, it is not for Parliament to change what the word “marriage” means.

It is interesting how this has been framed as an issue of fundamental human rights. A few years ago members on that side overwhelmingly voted to support the traditional definition of marriage and yet those same members come here and have the gall to suggest this is about fundamental human rights. If this is about fundamental human rights, why are those members not championing this cause? They are not because it is not a fundamental human right. It is a social policy decision and there has not been one court from any national or international body or tribunal that has suggested otherwise.

We do not know where this is going to lead, but it is virtually unprecedented. We know that Sweden, Norway, France and Australia are taking a reasonable approach. They recognize that there are equality rights and access issues raised by the issue of same sex couples, but they have not attempted to change what the word “marriage” means in their countries, nor should we.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of my constituents to speak to Bill C-38 at report stage.

It is interesting that over the course of presenting petitions there were a number of petitions where constituents were calling on Parliament to recognize and to affirm marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. To put it another way they were calling on Parliament to affirm marriage in the traditional sense or in the sense that it is universally applied across countries, across cultures, across religions. When I attended various events in my riding, people asked, “Why are you going back next week? What is going on? Why the virtually unprecedented extension of the sitting of the House?” There is only one government bill on the projected order, Bill C-38, which in effect will change the legal definition of the word “marriage” in Canada”.

If Canadians are so concerned, so divided and so upset about changing a fundamental basic institution in our country, why is the Liberal government embarking on this approach? Why did it not look for alternatives that could have accomplished some of the concerns that were being raised?

This has not been the approach that other jurisdictions have taken. In France and Australia, for example, there has been a recognition of the rights of other couples but preservation of what the word “marriage” means.

It has been interesting to see over the last couple of years how the language has changed. This takes to me one of the amendments. In 1999 members across the way, including the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, and many members on that side and many members in this House, overwhelmingly assured Canadians that Parliament would not only affirm the traditional definition of marriage but would take all steps necessary to protect that definition of marriage in Canada. It was some time later, in 2000, when in the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, a clause was inserted which stated:

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.

The then justice minister and current Deputy Prime Minister spoke at length about the uniqueness of the institution of marriage and that how, as she said, Parliament and the Liberal government had no intention of changing what the word “marriage” meant in Canada.

The reason it is interesting to note that particular clause in the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act that was passed by this House 2000 is that in Bill C-38, clause 15 states:

Section 1.1 of the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act and the heading before it are repealed.

It is just that simple. Is it any wonder that there is cynicism out there? Those on the other side give assurances that religious freedoms are going to be protected, that freedom of expression is going to be protected, that changing what the word “marriage” means in our country is not going to have any impact on our country, is not going to have any impact on those that come after us. With a bit of revisionist history however, the Liberals in the year 2005, reach back to the year 2000 and pretend that Parliament at that time did not insert that declaratory clause on what the word “marriage” means. This brings me to one of the amendments. Remember, it states that for greater certainty the bill does not impact on the definition of marriage and then sets out what that definition is.

I sat on the legislative committee studying Bill C-38. I have heard the parliamentary secretary say a few things today that I would take issue with. One is that this issue has had a good hearing among Canadians. As members know, we on this side had to fight tooth and nail to get the number of witnesses we did. Theses were witnesses that the parliamentary secretary quoted, witnesses that he now acknowledges were good witnesses. The Liberals fought against including them on the witness list.

It is interesting that, through that committee, one of the amendments to Bill C-38, and this bill can only be described as smoke and mirrors, other than changing what the word “marriage” means in law in Canada, nothing else in the bill is of any legal effect. It does not offer any protection or is of any consequence to Canadians, other than the fact that it changes the definition of marriage.

I would like members to listen to the familiar words and see if this sounds familiar. Clause 3.1 says “For greater certainty”. Again, another assurance using the exact same language. The expression “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me” comes to mind. Once again we have members on that side saying “Don't worry about it; this won't impact on you”.

It is just like a couple of years ago when the Liberals said to Canadians not to worry. They indicated that this would not impact on what the word “marriage” meant and that it would not have that effect. Anyone with any common sense would know that was the ultimate conclusion that they were leading to. Now with the same conviction, those on that side are saying “For greater certainty”. I would like to read this provision. It says:

For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.

That sounds pretty good to me. To someone who is perhaps not a lawyer or to the average Canadian who might read this bill would say that sounds good. That sounds like the government has it covered. Canadians should know as well, as I do, that in law this is a declaratory provision that is not only unconstitutional but it does nothing to protect Canadians. That was the evidence we heard in committee.

We heard a justice department lawyer explain to us, and it is obvious if a person takes a close look at the provision, that this is simply restating that we have certain rights under the Canadian charter of rights. We heard where those rights can lead us. I heard witness after witness give testimony that their rights had been impacted because of the definition of marriage.

We heard at length about Bishop Fred Henry. We heard about marriage commissioners whose livelihood is being affected. We heard about the Knights of Columbus. Here is a real life example. The Knights of Columbus are a religious order of the Catholic church. They are being brought before a human rights tribunal in British Columbia because they will not sanction a same sex ceremony because it violates their religious beliefs. This is not some hypothetical down the road. This is happening right now. Bill C-38 does absolutely nothing to protect religious beliefs.

If we look at Bill C-38, the first clause says it is called the civil marriage act. I want to speak and support the amendment put forward by my colleague from Calgary Southeast that this clause be amended. The reason it should be amended is that there is no civil marriage in Canada. There is no distinction between civil marriage and marriage. There is only one definition of marriage. By even raising that concept that there is somehow two kinds of marriage in Canada is misleading to Canadians. It is creating more smoke and mirrors and clouding the issue. I support taking that out.

Motion No. 2 states that clause 2 be deleted. It says:

Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.

I have heard sufficient testimony that leads me to the conclusion that if we change the definition of marriage, it will have an impact on other rights. I am also confident that there are ways to address equality concerns without changing the definition of marriage. That is the Canadian way. That is what Canadians support. They support equality, but they also support this basic institution.

Motion No. 3 would delete clause 3 which says:

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

We know that the Supreme Court of Canada considered this bill and came to two very ironic conclusions. First, it said it would not say the traditional definition of marriage was unconstitutional and did not rule it unconstitutional. Yet the Liberals will lead us to believe it did. Second, it said a provision like that is ultra vires, outside the jurisdiction of Parliament, and it cannot act to protect religious freedoms. I will be opposing this bill. I urge my colleagues to do so and look for a Canadian compromise.

Petitions

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present a petition signed by individuals in my riding of Pierrefonds—Dollard on Bill C-38. The petitioners are calling on the Parliament of Canada to ensure that the definition of marriage remains the union of one man and one woman.

Civil Marriage Act

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have a few comments that I would like to make prior to getting into the substantive debate. The member indicated that he had not heard of anyone who had been disciplined or brought before commissions or courts because of their views in respect of marriage or the nature of homosexual or heterosexual relationships.

I do not know where this member was, but we heard it constantly. Not only did we hear it constantly before the justice committee, but we heard it constantly before this legislative committee. We have heard about Bishop Henry. He is facing two hearings in front of the Human Rights Commission in Alberta. We have heard that the Knights of Columbia in British Columbia are being taken before the Human Rights Commission because of their refusal to rent their property to celebrate and gay and lesbian marriage.

We have heard about Camp Arnes in Manitoba which has been brought before the Human Rights Commission because it refused to rent its church-sponsored facilities to a gay and lesbian choir. We have heard about the Brockie case, and here we are talking about individuals who for reasons of conscience refuse to do certain things, that has been brought in front of human rights commissions and in fact disciplined.

We have heard about the Saskatchewan bumper sticker case. We have heard of a number of cases. Some of these are still pending, but the point is that these cases are being brought before human rights tribunals on a regular basis. We have heard about Chris Kempling. The B.C. Court of Appeal said freedom of religion only goes so far and upheld the discipline of his losing his job for three months.

I want to move on, however. The issue that this is somehow a human right is something that I find very curious, given the Liberal government's position on this matter.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice say this is a matter of human rights. If this were a matter of human rights, would the government give its backbenchers the right to freely vote on this issue? If this were a fundamental human right, it would stand up and insist that every member must vote because this is a matter of fundamental human rights.

This is a social policy issue that is being dressed up under the charter of rights. The court in the reference case never characterized this as a fundamental human right. To characterize it in that fashion is a fraud. Quite frankly, the approach that the Liberal government has taken by saying that this is a human right but not demanding that its members vote that way demonstrates what kind of a fraud this is.

In respect of the evidence that was heard, we have heard it said there were about 500 witnesses. In fact, the justice committee, which was never allowed to report back because the government put a stop to those hearings, heard approximately 450 or so witnesses, but it never dealt with the bill. It dealt with the general principle of whether or not there should be same sex marriages. So that dealt with not a legislative focus but indeed on the entire concept of same sex marriage.

At second reading this House accepted in principle that there would be same sex marriages and passing it to the committee. In committee, my focus, and many of the members' focus, was not as much on the issue of how we redefine marriage, but how to protect those who for reasons of conscience and religion had concerns about this change. We had approximately 40 witnesses, and it was stated that would be it. It was through the Conservative efforts that another 20 witnesses, and I might say significant witnesses, were brought forward.

We were only allowed to bring 20 witnesses forward because an agreement was made that those 20 would be allowed to appear if we agreed to some kind of closure. That was not my preference, but that is in fact what happened.

In respect of this bill, and the significance and the consequences of this bill, we have heard less than 60 witnesses. This idea that we have been talking about this bill for the past three or four years is simply not correct.

I want to talk about how Bill C-38 approaches the problem. This bill is full of unconstitutional provisions. The reason those unconstitutional provisions are put in there is to give the people of Canada hope. Unfortunately, it is false hope, dealing both with the preamble section which talks about the freedom of conscience and religion and, in particular, the freedom of members of religious groups to hold and declare their religious beliefs and the right of religious officials to refuse to perform same sex marriage. Clause 3 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.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in the reference case, specifically held that whether that section is substantive or declaratory it is unconstitutional. What the Government of Canada tried to do is hoist this on Canadians and said that it is protecting our religious freedoms and that Canadians do not need any more protection other than what is stated in that.

Clearly, a proper reading of the Supreme Court of Canada decision says this is unconstitutional. I am surprised that the Minister of Justice has not moved his amendment to remove that now that this fraud has been exposed. It is better to have the plain truth staring at us, than to sugar coat it in this type of a fraudulent manner.

The next point I would like to make deals with clause 3.1. Again, this deals with exactly the approach that the Liberal government has taken to this issue. The amendment reads:

For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.

The charter of rights is a constitutional document that protects citizens against the government. We do not violate the charter of rights, as some Liberals have suggested, by expanding the rights given under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a floor. It is the lowest common denominator that is accepted as the floor of our guarantees.

It says that we can have no greater right of freedom of religion or freedom of conscience or freedom of expression than that which is guaranteed by the charter. It establishes a floor and this section confirms the lowest common denominator.

What many have found out, as Mr. Kempling found out by the B.C. Court of Appeal and others have found out, by saying that we have freedom of religion and freedom of expression, is that what was said or what a person's religious beliefs are, they are beyond the scope of that freedom of expression. It is freedom that goes beyond what is entrenched in the charter.

It gives no more rights and freedoms that are already guaranteed in the charter of rights. That charter has been hollow in terms of protecting rights and freedoms of people like Mr. Kempling. It simply has not granted them.

What needs to happen, if this is to have any substance, is to have the reference removed limiting that right to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and saying Canadians have the right to their freedom of religion without this kind of limitation which we know that the courts consistently put into second place when religious rights collide with equality rights.

This will essentially confirm the continued practice of the courts to affirm equality rights at the expense of religious freedom whenever those two rights collide. It is because equality rights are the new religion of the courts and the Liberal government. They will stomp on religious rights at every opportunity and the courts have demonstrated that in a number of cases.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am not quite sure what the question was in all of that.

As I explained in my speech, there are significant protections for religious freedom in Canada. The charter has not been proven deficient in this area. In fact, it has been proven vigorous in this area. Even the witnesses appearing before the committee could not point to any place where religious organizations or religious officials had been discriminated against on that basis.

One of the greatest examples is that religious organizations like the Catholic church have different standards when it comes to, say, the access to certain jobs by women within that institution. The ordination of women is not contemplated in the Catholic church. Yet no woman has been able to take the Catholic church to court to sue to be ordained in the Catholic church.

When I raised the issue of why that has not happened with one of the legal experts who was called to testify before the committee, one of the legal experts who was not supportive of Bill C-38, he said that it was unlikely that any lawyer would take such a case because the protections available under the law for religious institutions to make that kind of decision based on their beliefs, their theology, their doctrine were so strong that the case would not succeed.

I have every reason to believe that the same is true for the protections guaranteed around religious marriage. It is very different from civil marriage, which is what we are talking about in the bill. I believe those religious protections are there.

The hon. member in his long comment said that the Prime Minister was the one who had forced the debate on Canadians. I disagree with that too. The debate is before us today because gay and lesbian people in this country sought full equality in a key institution of this society, that institution being marriage. It was not brought upon us by politicians, by the Prime Minister or by activist judges. It was brought about by people who care about their full participation in our society and who care about the institution of marriage, and who believe in that institution and respect it fully.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the debate at report stage of Bill C-38.

I want to remind the House that this bill is a cause for celebration among gay and lesbian Canadians. It is a time when our relationships are being recognized, when our fight to be included in a key institution of Canadian society will finally be resolved.

This is not a new fight for gay and lesbian people in Canada. We began this fight over 30 years ago when Richard Vogel and Chris North took their fight for a marriage licence to the marriage office in Winnipeg. They were denied a licence at that time but later found support with the Unitarian Church. This fight has gone on for over 30 years because gay and lesbian Canadians, like other Canadians, believe in the institution of marriage. Many gay and lesbian Canadians want to be married because they believe in the commitment and responsibilities that are implied in marriage. That is why couples have fought through the courts to see their ability to be married recognized.

This has not happened because of some errant or wilful judge who wants to upset the apple cart in Canada. It has happened because there are couples who want their relationships recognized in exactly the same way that heterosexual relationships are recognized in this country, and who want access to the important institution of marriage. They do it because they believe in the institution of marriage and they want to be accepted into that important institution in our society on the same basis as other Canadians.

This is an important equality issue for gay and lesbian Canadians and indeed for all Canadians. It is important that our relationships are recognized, that we have the access to the stability that that recognition will offer, and that our children have access to stable families as well. It is also important that when our relationships fail we have access to the mechanisms of our law that allow us to deal fairly and justly with the dissolution of that relationship.

These are all important things that are covered in Bill C-38. This is a reason to celebrate. This is an important step forward for our society and for all Canadians. I do not want to lose that important aspect of this legislation. This bill on civil marriage will ensure that gay and lesbian Canadians have access to this key institution of our society on an equal basis.

The bill before us at report stage has been amended and further amendments are being proposed. Let me just say that we in this corner of the House do not support the amendments we are debating in Group No. 1, because these are amendments that seek to essentially gut the legislation and change fundamental aspects of it. We will not be supporting the amendments in Group No. 1.

Let me say as well that the bill before us was amended at committee. We have heard from other speakers this morning about the large number of people who have spoken on marriage over the past two and a half years. Over 450 witnesses appeared before the justice committee in the last Parliament on this issue, and almost 60 witnesses appeared before the legislative committee in this Parliament on this current bill.

In the legislative committee a vast majority, over two-thirds, of the witnesses we heard were people who had concerns about this legislation. They had a hearing at the committee. They were not always agreed with, but they were always listened to with care and with respect.

The bill was amended at committee in ways that provide greater reassurance. Those are not amendments that I thought were necessary. I thought the bill in its original form was clear in its intent and was clear that it protected religious freedom in Canada, but we heard regularly at the committee that more reassurance might be helpful, so the committee did accept several amendments. One is an additional preambular clause that states:

Whereas it is not against the public interest to hold and publicly express diverse views on marriage;

That is an important addition to the bill, even though preambular clauses are interpretive clauses. They help us understand the intent of the legislation, so that was an important addition and one which the committee made willingly. I did not think it was necessary, especially given the other clauses in the preamble which make the commitment to freedom of religion very clear.

As well, for greater certainty, another interpretive clause was added to clause 3 of the legislation. Clause 3 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.

The committee in its wisdom decided to add clause 3.1 to add even greater clarity on that issue. That clause reads:

3.1 For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.

I do not know what could be clearer in terms of interpreting this legislation to guarantee religious freedom in Canada and to guarantee the freedom of those religious organizations which do not, for whatever reason of their beliefs or theology, feel that they would be able to solemnize the marriage of a gay or a lesbian couple. It is very clear; it was clear previously, but it is now absolutely crystal clear. We have gone out of our way to make this absolutely well known in this legislation. The amendment introduced by my colleague from the Bloc goes even further to grant that reassurance.

One of the things we heard at the committee hearings was concern about the charitable status of organizations, religious organizations in particular. The amendment proposed by my colleague from the Bloc goes some way to offer reassurance on that score as well. Let me read it again:

Section 149.1 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (6.2):

(6.21) For greater certainty, subject to subsections (6.1) and (6.2), a registered charity with stated purposes that include the advancement of religion shall not have its registration revoked or be subject to any other penalty under Part V solely because it or any of its members, officials, supporters, or adherents exercises, in relation to marriage between persons of the same sex, the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We are very clear with this amendment as well. There is no threat to the charitable status of religious organizations because they hold a different view of marriage than the one put forward in the civil marriage act.

This legislation has taken great care to offer reassurance on the issue of freedom of religion. At the committee I do not think anyone expressed doubt or fear about the guarantees of religious freedom provided by the charter. I know of no witness who was able to provide an example to show that any religious institution had seen a failure in that protection of religious freedom. They could give us no explicit example of where the guarantees for religious freedom in the charter had failed in the past. There is no expectation on my part or on the part of others that will be the case in the future. The guarantee of religious freedom in the charter and in the Canadian Human Rights Act is solid. Equality rights do not necessarily trump religious freedom as we have heard from time to time.

We need to be very clear that religious freedom is important in Canada, but it cuts the other way as well. There are religious organizations in Canada that seek to marry gay and lesbian couples and want to do it in exactly the same way they do it for their heterosexual members. Currently that is not possible in some provinces where the court decisions are not in effect and they cannot legally marry gay and lesbian couples. This is an important issue of religious freedom from that side of the coin as well. Religious organizations that do support same sex marriage should have the ability to follow through on their belief and their doctrine in that regard and solemnize those marriages. This is important legislation for those organizations as well.

We have had a lot of debate on this issue. The justice committee toured Canada and heard from over 450 witnesses. Debates have been held in the House. Debates have been held in society from coast to coast to coast. There was a very thorough hearing of Bill C-38 by the legislative committee.

The majority of Canadians want us to get on with this legislation, whatever their views are on Bill C-38. They want us to get to the other issues that are before Parliament and move along. We have had a long debate with respect to Bill C-38.

As I said, we in this corner of the House cannot support the amendments in Group No. 1. However, we are glad that the bill is back on the agenda of the House and look forward to its passage in the very near future.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Madam Speaker, before beginning the debate, as such, I rise on a point of order. Consultations have taken place among the parties, and, if you seek it, you will find there is unanimous consent to adopt the following amendment. I move:

That Bill C-38 be amended by adding, after line 5 on page 6, the following:

11.1 Section 149.1 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (6.2):

(6.2.1) For greater certainty, subject to subsections (6.1) and (6.2), a registered charity with stated purposes that include the advancement of religion shall not have its registration revoked or be subject to any other penalty under Part V solely because it or any of its members, officials, supporters or adherents exercises, in relation to marriage between persons of the same sex, the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

If you seek the unanimous consent of the House, I believe you will find it.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to the House with respect to the report that has been received from the legislative committee on Bill C-38, being the civil marriage act.

The question of ensuring equal access to civil marriage for same sex couples is one that has engaged large numbers of Canadians, in particular Canadians of religious faith, as marriage is a religious sacrament to many, beyond a civil ceremony with legal consequences. As a result, many groups and individuals in our society have thought seriously about this issue and have important contributions to make to the debate.

A good number of them were prepared to take the time and make the necessary effort to present their points of view to the legislative committee and provide written observations.

For four weeks, 12 other members of this House, representing all parties, and I had the privilege of hearing their thoughts on future challenges and their dreams for the future of our great country, as well as their reservations and concerns on all aspects of Bill C-38.

The bill is a model of citizen engagement in the democratic process and I was honoured to be part of it. Indeed as the Minister of Justice has pointed out, the subject matter of the bill has had more discussion and debate, both here in the House and throughout the land, than almost any other issue.

The committee adopted the testimony and the evidence presented to the previous House committee on justice and human rights, which travelled to some 12 cities, heard over 450 witnesses and received over 300 written submissions and many thousands of e-mails and letters. Between then and now the question has been considered by the courts, of which including provinces and territories we are now at 9, as well as the Supreme Court of Canada that reviewed the government's draft legislation with the aid of 18 intervenors.

The committee has heard from over 60 witnesses representing a broad range of opinion, who came to Ottawa to share their views and concerns.

These included religious representatives from the Roman Catholic Church, the Evangelical Fellowship, the Pentecostal Assemblies, the United Church, the Unitarian Church, Sikhs, Jews, Muslims, lawyers representing the Canadian Bar Association, the Barreau du Québec, the Law Commission of Canada and many others, as well as the diverse interest groups such as the Home School Legal Defence Association and the Institute for Canadian Values, academics from the disciplines of law, sociology, political science, psychology and theology, gay and lesbian organizations such as EGALE and the Coalition pour la reconnaissance des conjoints et conjointes de même sexe, marriage commissioners from at least three different provinces and representatives of some of Canada's ethnic communities such as the Chinese Canadian National Council. It was a wide and enriching dialogue and members listened very carefully to what was being said by all.

I want the hon. members of this House who did not have the chance to be a part of this dialogue to know that it was marked by respect. All the groups and individuals, and all the political parties, regardless of their views on extending equal access to civil marriage to same sex couples, agreed that gays and lesbians are entitled to the same respect and dignity as any other group of Canadians.

Indeed, almost all groups and individuals took as a starting place that the equal benefits and responsibilities of married couples should be extended to same sex couples. The debate was over different visions of what that equal respect means in terms of the law.

There has been significant social evolution in Canada in our attitudes toward the importance of full participation for all minorities and specifically in terms of gay and lesbian Canadians. The presentations and discussions at these committee hearings provide strong evidence of that respect.

Many hours of the committee's time were spent in discussion of the wide range of views on the role of marriage in our society. Central to this aspect of the debate is the recognition that civil marriage differs in law from religious marriage. This premise was not always accepted by witnesses, particularly those whose understanding of marriage was anchored entirely within their faith with no recognition of its civil nature. Committee members stressed that the bill would mean that religions would continue to have the ability to marry whomever meets the criteria of their particular religion.

Yet many of the witnesses to the legislative committee made us increasingly aware of the level of concern over the possible unintended ramifications for religious groups of any changes to civil marriage. David Novak, a Judaic scholar from the University of Toronto, was particularly articulate on this aspect when he explained that when the purpose is seen in the civil context as addressing an injustice--here, the exclusion of a particular group from civil marriage--then axiomatically it appears that the religious groups which choose to preserve the heterosexual definition of marriage are perpetuating that injustice and so could be viewed as “counterculture”.

There are those to whom marriage is a sacrament. Marriage plays an important role in religious beliefs and inevitably is subject to a broad range of opinion. That, in part, is what gave rise to one of the two amendments made to the bill during consideration in committee, which added a new provision to the preamble.

It states:

--it is not against the public interest to hold and publicly express diverse views on marriage;...

The second point I want to emphasize to members of this House is that the focus of the committee was on ensuring that Bill C-38 provides a balance in its two foundational principles, extending equal rights to a minority and ensuring respect for the fundamental guarantee of religious freedom. Within the context of Bill C-38, this meant ensuring the continuing freedom of religious groups and of religious officials to make their own decisions on how to approach marriage within their faiths and beliefs.

This intention to balance these two compelling charter rights and freedoms can be seen in the structure of the bill itself. Its essence is contained in two simple provisions. The first states:

Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.

I stress “civil purposes”.

The second 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.

The intent to balance these two principles can also be seen in the preambles to the bill. Two in particular speak to religious freedom. The first one states:

WHEREAS everyone has the freedom of conscience and religion under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;...

The second one states:

WHEREAS nothing in this Act affects the guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion and, in particular, the freedom of members of religious groups to hold and declare their religious beliefs and the freedom of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs;...

The intent to strike a balance so that both rights are fully protected and neither takes precedence over the other can also be seen in the government's decision to first refer draft legislation to the Supreme Court of Canada last year before tabling this bill in the House. The major reason for the government making this reference was to respond to the concerns that religious freedom might be at risk by ensuring that the highest court in the land agreed with the government's view that religious freedom was already fully protected by the charter.

In response to the concerns of some religious groups and individuals, the government posed the question directly to the Supreme Court:

Does the freedom of religion guaranteed by paragraph 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protect religious officials from being compelled to perform a marriage between two persons of the same sex that is contrary to their religious beliefs?

In its response to the reference, the Supreme Court made one of the strongest statements ever on the nature of the charter's guarantee of freedom of religion.

I note that my time is up, but clearly, I believe, the way has been very clear to bring forward this bill and to demonstrate that equality, respect and dignity are a very important part of Canadian life.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have always defended the family and marriage and I will continue to do so. I will vote against Bill C-38. I wish I had a chance to answer the rest of the member's questions, but he very much has the wrong idea of what the facts are.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, there certainly was a clarity back in 1999. My clarity concern was with regard to Bill C-38. The member is not talking about that.

In Bill C-38 we have a series of whereas which tend to tell a story. However, the court basically said in its decision on the four questions and specifically mentioned the definition of marriage did not appear in any federal statute. Yet it was in the preamble of the benefits improvement bill. The Supreme Court has used that against the position on Bill C-38.

I only raise it from the standpoint, for the member's interest, that if we were to take out all the whereas clauses, which have no force in law, and if we were to take out the others, what we would be left with is marriage is the union of any two persons to the exclusion of all others with no defining characteristics whatsoever. This is the fundamental flaw of the bill.

Marriage no longer has any defining characteristics. Marriage was trashed by the Halpern decision in which it basically said that children could exist in a relationship through adoption, through a previous marriage or through reproductive technologies et cetera.

Since when does the exception make the rule? Marriage is a founding institution of society. It is a fundamental institution. It contemplates family and children. The tragedy of the bill is that children have not been the issue of debate and they should have been.

[Art Hanger, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member across the way carefully. I think one should listen to him carefully because he is very consistent in his position.

He talked about the lack of clarity in Bill C-38. The member was in the House in 1999 when the Prime Minister made a pledge to take all necessary steps to preserve the definition of marriage. The Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the House leader, all voted in favour of that motion. Now the member is talking about a lack of clarity. I thought it was very clear what members on that side of the House would do. What happened?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the bill in its totality. This is probably the most important bill that has been addressed by Parliament since I have been here in the last 12 years. I was very disappointed with the bill itself in terms of what it tried to present and what it in fact actually presents.

The bill and the representations of the justice minister have been that all of the protections necessary with regard to religious beliefs and to matters of conscience already exist in the charter. I tend to agree, but if we accept that, then we also accept the preambles which are not operative. In the reprint there is a clause that says “for greater certainty” and in clause 3 it says “it is recognized that”. These are declaratory clauses.

The title of the bill is the civil marriage act and that marriage is, for civil purposes, the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others. That is the entire bill. Although there are some consequential amendments to other acts, they are simply reflective of those provisions.

I want to raise this from the standpoint that maybe the public is somewhat disconcerted about the words that have been used. I suspect, judging by what people have said to me, that the public do not understand what difference between civil marriage and marriage as defined in common law before the changes from the Halpern decision.

We also have a Marriage Act. One of the things that most Canadians would probably be surprised to know is that marriage is not defined in the laws of Canada today. It is a matter of definition in the common law. In fact, when the bill was before Parliament to deal with the extension of benefits to gay and lesbian persons, all of the references and inclusions of the definition of marriage were deleted from all existing legislation. There was, however, a preamble to that bill, which basically said that nothing in this bill takes away from the fact that marriage is the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in its decision with regard to the reference of the four questions, said something in what I believe was section 60 that was quite disturbing to many. It said, and I will paraphrase it, that in the absence of unique circumstances of which we will not speculate, the right for religious persons or persons of religious groups to deny marriage to same sex persons will be protected.

It is kind of an ominous statement to suggest that something might come up. One of the reasons for report stage motions is an effort to draw the line in the sand that deals with the protections of matters related to conscience and religious beliefs under section 2(a) of the charter.

In the legislative committee that dealt with Bill C-38 there was one additional clause. It was a declarative clause and I will read it into the record. It was an important achievement of those on the committee who felt it was necessary to identify for Canadians that there was a strong view of Parliament included in the bill. It states:

For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.

That is the legalese, but it basically says that under section 2(a) of the charter those who continue to express their conscience or religious belief with regard to marriage are not at risk.

However, there is this case of the statement within the Supreme Court response to the reference of the four questions, which raises the spectre that this may very well come back, and I have no doubt it will. The question will come back in the form of, “I was born into this church, I have been in this church all of my life and the church has no right to deny my right to be married in my church”. The matter will come before the courts.

It is extremely important for all hon. members, regardless of their position on the definition of marriage, to ensure they have on the record that it is the will of Parliament to ensure that matters of conscience and religious beliefs shall not be challenged or trumped by the equality provisions under section 2(a) of the charter.

One of the previous speakers talked about human rights and the UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights wherein the definition of marriage was sustained. When we talk about the equality provision under the charter and the concern that it would be trumped, the fact is even should Bill C-38 pass, persons of religious groups could refuse to marry same sex persons. That means the equality provisions of the charter are in conflict and will be in conflict. There is not true equality here. The equality is subject to and provides the opportunity for those who, because of matters of conscience or religious beliefs, choose not to perform marriages of same sex persons.

I would have wished the representations with regard to the bill could have been clearer. Unfortunately, some of the debate has been skewed into some other areas. Quite frankly, I think the starting point for all who have heard the debate in this place must very well be to ask the question, what is the point at which we abandon all the fundamental basic institutions of our society? I cannot think of any institution other than the institution of marriage which is more fundamental to a strong Canada and to a vibrant society. Society exists and sustains itself because of the family and marriage. Without that, society as we know it would cease to exist.

I hope that other members will participate in the debate to ensure our commitment to Canadians that matters of conscience and religious beliefs as protected under section 2(a) of the charter will never be challenged by the argument on the equality issue.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I come to this debate today with a sense of sadness in my heart because I never thought it would come to this, at least not so soon.

I also come with a sense of sadness because I have children and three grandchildren. I anticipate that I will have great-grandchildren hopefully before I pass off this earthly scene. Because of that and because of the ill -thought through and ill-advised move that is being made in these days, I think it will have a very serious effect on our society, as it has already been proven in Scandinavia and other countries like that.

I, like many others on this side of the House, and our party, the Conservative Party, am grateful that in some of the other parties there are a few individuals who hold as well that the natural law, the superseding law that actually over the course of many years down through history has been the matter of a heterosexual union, a man and woman, an opposite gender definition of marriage to the exclusion of all others.

We need that within in our society because it builds a bond between those two people and then children come into that union. Also we state “to the exclusion of all others” because there is nothing like unfaithfulness to one's spouse or to one's partner that will break that marriage down and destroy that union to the detriment of those individuals, to the detriment of the children and of course society at large.

Marriage and the family based on marriage are basic fundamental institutions of society. We should not change these kinds of foundations lightly. We should not be doing it in the manner that we are in these last months.

I do not believe the government has demonstrated that there are compelling reasons to alter this central social institution.

My colleague who just spoke well made the point that there are other ways to address this issue and yet the the Liberal government, that insists on a wonderful Canadian virtue of tolerance and working things out in an amicable manner, has ignored that in a very divisive way. When it could have addressed this issue in a rather different manner, it has chosen to take the most divisive manner possible and drive a wedge right down the very middle of Canadian society with a great deal of vigour.

One of the major purposes of marriage has been to provide a stable environment for the procreation and raising of children. That does not mean that other relationships are not loving and valuable. Often in the definition of marriage people will say that they have some of the earmarks of marriage. That may be true to a point but it does not include that one fundamental purpose of marriage relationships, of a bond of a man and a woman coming together in terms of the next generation, the procreative element. There is no possible way in the same gender, a same sex relationship, that procreation can occur. The fruit of that union does not come as a result of anything other than an opposite gender definition.

We believe as well that the institution of marriage has as one of its goals the nurturing of children in the care of a mother and a father and the right of every child to know and to be known by their mother and father.

We have often heard of those great anguishes, struggles and journeys of individuals who were adopted to find out who that mother and father were; who were the individuals who procreated them, the biological ones who brought them into being.

If we change the definition of marriage to end the opposite sex marriage requirement we will be saying that the goal of marriage is no longer important.

I guess that is why it leaves me with a great sense of sadness, disappointment and discouragement at this juncture and at this point in history insofar as the law is a teacher. Ancient texts have said that the law is a teacher. It teaches us what is good, what is not so good and those things that are to be exalted, uplifted, encouraged, reinforced and, in this case, one way or the other, for good or for bad, the law will be a teacher again.

What kind of message will it send to our children and to our young people as they are coming up to that age of marriage? is it that a one night stand, a two week shack up or a six week living together kind of thing is equivalent in every respect as individuals coming before witnesses, family and others, before God and committing themselves to one another until death do them part, for life?

What kind of a message do we send to people who might be in the galleries today and our young pages here? What kind of a message do we send to them about the importance of the institution of marriage?

We know the answer to that. In some of those Scandinavian countries, we have already seen the very devastating impact that there has been to marriage. There has been less marriage. There are less children coming about as a result of marriage. There are more children born to single parent situations, where individuals, while remarkable, are taking care of those children 24/7.

The central question that we are wrestling with is whether marriage is still connected to this potential to have and raise children, and to provide a stable environment for those children, or whether it is simply connected with the personal needs of two adults in a close relationship.

We know from untold documentation and research to no end that, and it is there for anybody who would care to look at it, children who are in heterosexual married, intact family relationships do better. There are a great deal more problems with alcohol abuse, drug abuse, and in not doing so well in the schooling system and other things such as criminal involvement. The studies have been done. I do not need to say that. There will of course be individuals who will torque that and twist that comment. If they were to simply look seriously at the research that is there, they would find that demonstrated in spades.

We are coming to the point where if Bill C-38 were to pass, there would be an emphasis on an adult relationship. Instead of marriage being that which takes on responsibilities and provides for children, “it's all be about adult relationships, about me and myself as an individual and the pleasure I get in this union”.

I get a great deal of pleasure in the relationship and union with my wife. She has been a faithful companion to me for some 29 years now. It is beyond that. It is more than that. It is about the children that have come into the world by way of our union and the responsibility that we have to them. It is not just about adults. It is not just about two individuals. It is about the offspring and the progeny as well.

Margaret Somerville, the ethicist at McGill University, makes this point very eloquently in the recent book Divorcing Marriage: Unveiling the Dangers in Canada's New Social Experiment , an excellent book. I have it on my desk and it is a book that I recommend for anyone to read. There are some excellent essays there. Dr. Somerville says:

The crucial question is: should marriage be primarily a child-centred institution or an adult-centred one? The answer will decide who takes priority when there is an irreconcilable conflict between the interests of a child and the claims of adults. Those who believe that children need and have a right to both a mother and a father, preferably their own biological parents, oppose same sex marriage because...it would mean that marriage could not continue to institutionalize and symbolize the inherently procreative capacity between the partners; that is, it could not be primarily child centred. In short...accepting same sex marriage...means abolishing the norm--the accepted value--that children...have a prima facie right to know and be reared within their own biological family by their father and mother. Carefully restricted, governed, and justified exceptions to this norm, such as adoption, are essential. But abolishing the norm would have a far-reaching impact.

That is probably the most central reason why we need to be concerned about society and the impact on society down the road. The birth rate has seriously declined as it is. Then, more importantly, when we have children born in other kinds of relationships and not cared for through a lifetime and supported through at least some two decades of growing up years, then it begins to have an effect on society in terms of the social cost, the justice cost, the cost on education and health and so on.

We still have that standing on the record in this country. It has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. In fact, the Supreme Court of Canada has not even yet ruled that traditional marriage is unconstitutional in any way. It has not come to that point. Dare I say that if the court was tested on that, it may well not either.

I note the fact that whether this law passes in its present form or not, there is a higher law. There is a natural law. We can say black is white and we can say white is black. We can twist it how we want in terms of federal, provincial, or municipal laws. At the ultimate end of the day there is a higher natural law that says traditional heterosexual marriage, the opposite gender union, is what constitutes marriage and will continue over time down the road.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague was not here in 1999 but had she been so she would have been witness to a debate on a motion brought forward by a member to reaffirm the House of Common's understanding that marriage constituted a union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others and that all necessary means be used to protect this definition in law.

The reason the motion came to the House was because of various court decisions that began to cause serious doubt about the intention of the courts to maintain respect for the common law understanding of marriage.

Parliament, never having actually used its constitutional responsibility under section 93 to define in statute the definition of marriage, has always simply respected the common law heterosexual understanding of marriage. Following the debate in 1999, Parliament decided overwhelmingly, by a vote of 240 to 50-some, to retain the traditional definition of marriage.

At the time, the current right hon. Prime Minister voted in favour of maintaining the traditional definition of marriage and using all legal means necessary to maintain it. The current Deputy Prime Minister, who at the time was the minister of justice, stood in this place and said that the government had no intention whatsoever of ever seeking to change the definition. She went out of her way to assure Canadians that even the suggestion that there might be such an agenda in the future was ridiculous and irresponsible. Accordingly, I believe that something like 90% of the Liberal members of Parliament at the time stood in their places and voted to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.

I would remind my colleague that this was just a few months before an election. Those members were apparently unwilling to reveal their hidden agenda at the time, which was to support a change in the definition of marriage. We see the same thing before us here today.

The reason we are now sitting beyond the scheduled date of Parliament for the first time since 1988 and, I believe, the second time in post-war history, is that members opposite are terrified of facing the verdict of Canadians on their hidden agenda to change the meaning of marriage. They have recalled us to this place to try to jamb this bill through so they do not have to face their constituents on this matter in the summer or in the next election. They want to say that the matter has been dealt with and is behind us.

I put those members on notice that even if Bill C-38 should pass, this debate will continue in Canadian society because the majority of Canadians will not accept the state taking over a fundamental institution of civil society and changing its essential meaning without public consensus.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise as the first speaker at report stage of Bill C-38, a bill which I believe is not in the best interests of Canada, Canadian citizens or Canadian families. That is why I was pleased to furnish certain amendments to change aspects of this bill to which many Canadians object.

As we know, what this bill seeks to do is to change the meaning of marriage. I think it is important at the outset of any intervention on this bill that we remind ourselves of the unprecedented nature of this bill in the historical and legal context.

Through all recorded human history, in every civilization, in every culture, in every religious tradition, in every secular tradition, in every legal and political tradition, marriage has been understood universally and without exception to mean a committed lifetime sanctified relationship between a man and a woman. There have been cultures that have accepted polygamist relationships--thankfully not in Canada today, at least not legally--but the sociological and anthropological evidence which has been presented before Parliament, and indeed which had been presented by the government to the courts when this matter was being litigated is unanimous, that marriage has always been understood by its nature and its essence to constitute a heterosexual union.

It is equally important at the outset to state yet once more for the record that the ontological meaning of marriage as a heterosexual union, which is by its nature therefore open to the transmission of life and culture, does in no way constitute unjust discrimination against those who seek recognition for unions in non-traditional relationships.

Indeed in Canada today, in every province, there are social benefits provided to people who live in non-marital unions, people of the same gender, people of opposite genders who do not live in a marital relationship. There is no legal prohibition. There is no legal sanction. There is no cultural opprobrium attached to that kind of relationship. There is no denial of benefits attached to those non-traditional relationships.

What this bill seeks to do, unique in all of human history, is to change the meaning of marriage, not to just change its definition, but to change its essential meaning. The motions which stand in the House in my name today are predicated on this belief. I submit that this Parliament does not have the power to change the meaning of essential social institutions which predate this Parliament itself. Marriage predates the Canadian state. It predates the modern state itself. It is a natural institution.

I submit that it is a dangerous moment from a libertarian point of view when the state, through a bill such as this, seeks to intervene into an institution which belongs to civil society, not to the sphere of the state, to change the meaning of something which is natural and ontological, which is not a toy, a plastic entity that the state can play with and change its meaning as it pleases.

I think this represents a fundamental misunderstanding about the appropriate limits of power of the modern state. I would further submit that this is widely understood by Canadians. There is really no contest that the consensus among public opinion polling reflects that some two-thirds of Canadians are opposed to changing the meaning of marriage in law.

A majority of Canadians oppose unjust discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, and rightfully so. A majority of Canadians support the provision of benefits on grounds such as domestic partnership relationships, which are grounded on unions of economic dependency rather than relationships of a mere conjugal nature, and yet still two-thirds of Canadians, from every culture that exists in this country, from every corner of the globe who have come to this country to build a future for themselves and their families, recognize that marriage is, as the Supreme Court said the last time it spoke to this issue in the Egan case in 1995, “by nature a heterosexual institution”.

It recognized what the 1949 Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognized, which is the right for a man and a woman to marry. Two-thirds of Canadians recognize what the European Convention on Human Rights recognizes, that there is a right for “a man and a woman to marry”. These two-thirds of Canadians recognize what the Organization of American States covenant on human rights recognizes, which is that men and women have a right to marry.

These two-thirds of Canadians, who we represent here today, believe what the United Nations Commission on Human Rights ruled, which is that it is in no way a violation of human or civil rights to recognize that marriage constitutes a union between a man and a woman.

These two-thirds of Canadians recognize what the Supreme Court of Canada said on this matter when it last ruled in 1995 on the constitutionality of the definition of heterosexual marriage, when Judge LaForme said that marriage was “by its nature a union between a man and a woman”.

I submit that these two-thirds of Canadians are in the broad mainstream of public and political opinion of historical precedent and legal practice in this and in every other country of the world, which is why I submit that we should stop and pause before rushing in to adopt the bill, overriding the consensus of history and the consensus of the Canadian people, which represent very important values that we ought not to undermine without very serious forethought.

I therefore put these motions forward. The first seeks to delete clause 1 of the bill. As I have said, there is no foundation in law, practice, tradition or history for a distinction between civil as opposed to any other kind of marriage, including religious marriage. I further believe that the title of the bill could mislead and confuse Canadians. The bill attempts to redefine the definition of marriage for all purposes to the extent that could be done by the Parliament of Canada. Because I believe Parliament is attempting to redefine in a fundamental way the capacity of persons who have had no such capacity in the past to marry, I therefore submit that the act is simply misnamed.

With respect to my second motion now before the House, it would delete clause 2 which provides that marriage for civil purposes be redefined. This again is a misnomer. In any case, defining marriage as simply the union of any two persons was not dictated by any decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. As I have reminded the House, the last time the courts spoke to this matter it reaffirmed the heterosexual nature of marriage. I submit this because Parliament is not compelled as a matter of law and would be going against the opinions and views of a clear majority of Canadians by so redefining the institution of marriage.

With respect to clause 8 in the name of my colleague from Saskatoon--Wanuskewin, it would amend the bill be deleting clause 7, which would delete the Merchant Navy Veteran and Civilian War-related Benefits Act. This section of the act deals with the allocation of pensions. Bill C-38 does not replace this section of the act with a new clause. The committee heard no discussion about the impact of deleting this clause on the allocation of these pensions. It therefore begs the question of how the government is planning to protect survivors who currently depend on these pensions.

Finally, with respect to Motion No. 10 in the name of my colleague from Saskatoon--Wanuskewin, it seeks to delete clause 15 which relates to the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act and the heading before it. These sections confirm the traditional definition of marriage as it then was in 2000. This is like rewriting history. It is one thing to let legislators make changes but it is another to rewrite history.

What we seek to do by deleting Motion No. 10 is restore the clearly stated intent of Parliament in 2000, including the entire cabinet and some 90% of the Liberal government at the time who voted into law the preamble to the Modernization of Benefits Act to recognize the essential heterosexual nature of marriage. I ask the government simply to be consistent and not change, without having an electoral mandate, its position on the fundamental question of what marriage means.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, for Mr. Tom Wappel]

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

moved:

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 15.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

[The Speaker]

There are 11 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-38.

Before I address the issues relating to the selection and grouping of these motions for debate, I would like to mention that I have received several submissions pertaining to the admissibility of motions submitted for report stage. These motions of course are not printed on the notice paper and are returned in confidence to the author with reasons why they are procedurally inadmissible. I must state that this has been the normal practice of the House since 1994 when the Standing Orders were amended to provide that only those motions which are considered admissible by the Speaker are to be printed on the notice paper.

It is extraordinary for the Speaker to address admissibility issues in the House. Standing Order 76.1(2) states: “If the Speaker decides that an amendment is out of order, it shall be returned to the Member without having appeared on the Notice Paper.”

In this instance, the Chair will take certain liberties and explain the three basic reasons why certain report stage motions for Bill C-38 are inadmissible and have been returned to their sponsors.

First, a preamble to a bill can only be amended if it is made necessary due to an amendment to a clause of a bill, or for reasons of clarification. That is why, for example, preambles are considered at the end of clause by clause examination of the bill by the committee.

Second, an amendment to a bill cannot modify a statute or a section of a statute which is not contained in the bill. This is commonly known as the parent act rule. Its primary purpose is to keep amendments focused to the precise provision of the act which is being modified by the bill.

Third, amendments to the clauses of a bill after second reading must respect the scope of the bill, as “Amending Bills at Committee and Report Stages” states on page 5, “The scope of a bill means the schemes or ways by which the principles of the bill are achieved”. Thus, all amendments must fit within the four corners of the bill to be admissible. They cannot import matters which are not addressed in the bill. They can only refine what is already there.

Regrettably, many report stage motions address matters which are considered beyond the scope of the bill and hence are inadmissible. Many of these procedural issues also arose in committee and were ruled upon by the chair of the legislative committee, the Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole House.

The Chair understands the concerns of members but assures them that the amendments judged to be inadmissible were given close attention and that decisions were exercised based on well-established rules and precedents.

Now, I will proceed with my ruling on the selection and grouping of motions for report stage of Bill C-38.

Motion No. 6 will not be selected by the Chair as it was defeated in committee. Motions Nos. 7, 9 and 11 will not be selected by the Chair as they could have been presented in committee.

All remaining motions have been examined and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at the report stage. The motions will be grouped for debate as follows:

Group No. 1 will include Motions Nos. 1 to 3, 8 and 10. Group No. 2 will include Motions Nos. 4 and 5.

The voting patterns for the motions within each group are available at the Table. The Chair will remind the House of each pattern at the time of voting.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1 to 3, 8 and 10 in Group No. 1 to the House.

An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to make Certain Payments

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member had connected it to Bill C-48 already. Liberals do not want to hear about this, but they are going to hear about this.

These 30 Liberal MPs will not, because they do not have the courage, vote against Bill C-48 and defeat the government, so we can go to an election and through an election decide the outcome of the marriage bill. Because they do not have the courage, Bill C-38 will certainly pass. Many members of the government will not even have a free vote on the issue. There are 30 MPs who will not take a stand for their constituents. They will be responsible for same sex marriage coming into place in this country in spite of them saying exactly the opposite.

Then we have the whole two front rows in the government who do not have a free vote. They are not allowed to represent their constituents. For these reasons, Bill C-38 will pass. It is on their heads.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have been debating Bill C-48 for a week and that is what we are on now. We are not on Bill C-38.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of Parliament for 12 years and I have worked very hard to represent my constituents in those 12 years. Today is the saddest day that I have ever experienced in the House of Commons. One hour of debate will be allowed for a bill worth $4.5 billion of my children's money and other people's children's hard earned money.

That is important, but what is most important about Bill C-48 and the third reading vote that we are about to take is that if the bill is not defeated then Bill C-38, the same sex bill, will certainly pass in this House.

We have had 30 members of the Liberal Party who have said they would do everything they could to defeat Bill C-38, the marriage bill. They are the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, the member for Mississauga South, the member for Huron—Bruce, and the member for Pickering—Scarborough East. They are 30 in total--

Extension of Sitting Period

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I definitely was not calling the hon. member opposite who just rose by that name, nor was I calling you by that name, Madam Speaker. Let us make the record clear that I was calling neither the member nor you “Charlie”.

In any case, let me continue. There is the issue of Bill C-38, which the hon. members across say they do not want to vote on. Maybe I should remind members of something that appeared in today's Quorum , I believe, and definitely in a number of newspapers. It is an article written by columnist Don Martin, who gave some advice to the hon. members across about that issue. He said that for their own political good maybe what they should consider is getting the vote over with before they embarrass themselves even further, not only on that issue but on many others.

I say for the hon. members across that whether they agree or disagree with the content of the bill, this issue has been in the public domain for three years. Sixty-two witnesses have been listened to by the legislative committee. The bill has about four clauses. The members across have all spoken at second reading, every single one of them who wanted to, and every single one of them on the amendment as well, and on the subamendment and so on.

We have listened to what they had to say. It is not a matter of the House needing more pearls of wisdom in that regard. In any case, if I listen to what the opposition House leader says, it is not that they want more time. It is that they do not want to do that particular work at all because they do not like it.

I know that Madam Speaker is a teacher by training. Do people have a choice in doing their homework based on whether or not they like it? That is not the criteria.

Let us hear what the opposition House leader said today, June 23, after question period in the foyer of the House of Commons:

We've been consistent in saying right from the beginning that we are strongly opposed to these two bills.

That is all right. They can vote against them. He stated further:

There's not a Canadian left out there in the real world that doesn't understand that.

Of course: they have all spoken two or three times each so every one of us understands what their position is. It does not need to be clarified much further.

I will continue to quote the opposition House leader:

We have no intention and it's not our role, frankly, to make things easy for the government to pass bills that we're opposed to.

There we are. They do not like Bill C-38. They do not like Bill C-48. They do not like the fact that we are going to give more money to social housing. They do not like more money going to the Canadian International Development Agency to help the world's poor.

What is their solution? Is it to vote against that which they do not like? No, it is to not want to do the work. Not wanting to work is the way in which they solve their problems.

Now, not wanting to work just does not cut it with Canadians. Their constituents and mine will not put up with that. They sent us here to do the work.

Let us do the work. The hon. members say they want to go home. Of course they do. Their House leader said that on their behalf and their House leader always says it the way it is, or generally. In any case, if their House leader says they want to go home, I am not opposed to that.

We are going to vote on this motion tonight. We have from now until midnight. Let us vote on the two bills and go home. Canadians will say, “You did your work, Mr. or Ms. MP”. We will all have done our work and we can go home to do all the things that the opposition House leader said we should be doing.

I agree with him that we should be going home, but we should do our work first because when we do not do our work we have to stay in class at recess or after hours to get the work done. We are supposed to do the work before we go away. Those are the rules.

I say this in the presence of a teacher, namely our Acting Speaker, because I know she used to teach for a living and she will know these things in the truly objective manner in which I am sure she sees these matters.

I ask all my colleagues to join together and vote for this motion. After the motion, let us join together again and vote for the bills. Let us get the work done and then we can go home, in that order. That is the way it should be done.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I am glad the hon. member across said that the House had lots of time. I sat on the legislative committee dealing with Bill C-38. It is a legislative committee and that committee of course was supposed to deal with technical witnesses. The hon. member for Provencher and others across the way insisted that we hear some 62 witnesses on a bill that has about four clauses.

Why did they do that? It is obvious. They wanted to delay the passage of the bill. They did not want to vote against the bill. They wanted to delay its passage. They did not want to vote at all.

That is not the way it works. The government has a duty, a constitutional responsibility to this nation, and that is exactly what it is going to do. It is going to proceed and get its legislative programs through because that is why governments are there: to get things done. That is quite normal.

If the opposition delays, and I am not saying this of everybody, but if the Conservative opposition delays the government in completing its work, then obviously the government has only one or two choices. It can either curtail debate, that is, move time allocation on individual bills, or it can extend the sitting in order to get the legislation through, or possibly both, which the government may well have to do now.

That is not because the government House leader and the government were not totally efficient in their way of doing their business. That is because the opposition does not know what it is doing.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Hidden agenda? There are hidden agendas here and there. The Liberals are going to keep us here to get Bill C-48 through, which is the NDP budget, the tail wagging the dog.

I see nothing about Bill C-48 in budget plan 2005. I can go through all the documents. I can go through the budget speech by the Minister of Finance. I can do a full review of the budget and move toward a green economy in the budget. I can move on to securing our social foundations in the budget. I can see achieving a productive and sustainable economy in the budget. I see a new deal for Canadian communities in the budget. I can see meeting our global responsibilities, the budget in brief, in the budget. However I do not see a word about Bill C-48.

How did this conversion on the road to socialism become all of a sudden such a big deal, this two page budget spending $4.5 billion with no programming whatsoever? The Liberals are just saying that we should spend the cash, blow it out the door without having a program by which to deliver it.

They talk about more money for housing. We do not disagree with more money for housing but all it says is:

for affordable housing, including housing for aboriginal Canadians, an amount not exceeding $1.6 billion;

In the province of Alberta and right across this country we are going to build more than 200,000 housing units this year. For the fourth year in a row we are now going to exceed 200,000. The building industry is going flat out. Construction workers are working at the maximum. I am thinking about putting an addition on my house and I cannot even get people to do it because they are all working so hard. How are we going to be able to put another $1.6 billion into housing, apart from just creating an inflationary environment in the housing market? The Liberals do not think about that. They just say that if this is what it takes to get the NDP, that is what it takes.

It also talks about the energy efficient retrofit program for low income housing. We have a program for retrofit of energy inefficient houses. We are building the industry. We cannot just expand it in an explosive way overnight because that does not work. I am surprised the members of the NDP agreed to this but I am not surprise that the Liberals promised them anything.

However this budget will not work. A year from now the Auditor General will be saying that things are falling off the rails.

I am opposed to Motion No. 17 that would allow us to continue to debate Bill C-48 and Bill C-38 because both of those bills should have been in the trash can. If that were to happen then we could get on with doing the real business of Canada.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, in any event, budget plan 2005 does not even mention anything that is in Bill C-48. This just appeared magically, all of a sudden.

Bill C-48 does talk about putting $900 million into the environment. The government says this is important, but let us take a look back to the springtime when the government tabled the budget. It was going to put $5 billion into the environment over the next five years, $1 billion for the innovative clean air fund, $225 million to expand the successful EnerGuide for houses retrofit incentive program, $200 million for this and $200 million for that. That was a budget that the Conservative Party supported.

All of a sudden the government said, “We want to bring in the NDP as our friends and we are going to spend another $900 million on the environment just to buy their love”. Bill C-48 is not urgent. it is not dollars that are needed. Bill C-48 is for the Liberal Party. This is not for the people of Canada.

Then we go on to things like education and support for training. What does the big document say? Education, investment in Canadian capabilities, investing in people, $5 billion over five years to start building a framework for learning, and $120 million over five years for first nations children, $398 million for integration, supported by the Conservative Party no less. That is not enough for the NDP members. They need more.

What about housing? The Minister of Finance is going to deal with first nations housing. He is going to deal with development assistance abroad. On page 206 there is an increase of $3.4 billion over the next five years so we can meet our international obligations for the poor in Africa and the poor elsewhere around the world. That is important. The NDP wants to squeeze another $500 million out of the Canadian taxpayer, even though we as the Conservative Party supported this budget of $3.4 billion in extra foreign aid. This is generous. Now there is another $500 million to buy the support of the NDP. This is not about public policy. This is not about helping Canadians. This is about helping the Liberals stay in power with the support of the NDP.

There are only 308 members in the House, half on that side and half on this side. The House is evenly divided as everyone knows. We have had too many tied votes around here recently.

That is the price of buying the NDP, $4.5 billion, out of the pockets of Canadian taxpayers. It is rather unfortunate.

Then we have Bill C-38, the same sex marriage bill. The Supreme Court brought down its reference response last December, as I recall. That is more than six months ago. All of a sudden there is a great urgency to get this bill out of the way. Two weeks ago the Prime Minister gave the indication that we could deal with this in the fall, but he has had a change of heart. He wants it done now. We wonder why he wants it done now and he wants to keep us around here to get it done, even though many Canadians, perhaps even a majority of Canadians have said, “We don't want this legislation”.

Everyone acknowledges and has agreed and given to same sex couples the same benefits that any other couple enjoys. But the word “marriage” is a hallowed name, a word that has come to us down through the centuries. The government is going to change the definition of every dictionary in the land and even around the world because it wants to capitulate and give the definition of marriage to same sex couples.

We disagree with that and half of people in the country, or more, disagree with that.

I think the Liberals have found out that the polls are moving against them on this issue. On that basis, they wanted to get this issue out of the way so that in the summertime it would not fester. They wanted to have smooth sailing, hopefully, into the next election. Well, it will not be smooth sailing into the next election because we will ensure that the people who are opposed to this will show up at on polling day and register their concern and their absolute disgust at what the government has done.

I was talking to a friend of mine who is in the polling business and he told me that this was intergenerational, that the younger people tend to support same sex marriage and the older generation say “no way”. It is interesting that the people who say “yes, there is nothing wrong with same sex marriage” when they are young, tend to change their mind when their children arrive. Their children, of course, come from a heterosexual relationship and no other kind of relationship that I am aware of. When their children arrive they are the ones changing diapers, raising them and doing everything that parents do. I know this as I am also a proud parent. However we realize that perhaps the heterosexual relationship is not only the normal way but the right way and the way that has to be endorsed by society and that is what marriage is all about.

The question we have to ask is why the big rush.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the member on his engagement to Melissa Craig of Yukon. I noted that while he was supporting Bill C-38, which is the same sex marriage bill, he is opting for the more traditional form of marriage, so we would like to congratulate him on that as well.

New love is always something to behold. I say new, not young, because the member for Yukon is past the teenybopper stage, but I would just like to ask him this question since he is supporting the motion to stay here in Ottawa for a few more weeks, perhaps, rather than returning to Yukon. He is obviously more committed to the Liberal Party than to his new-found love. How is he going to be able to explain all this when he goes back home?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Yes, especially me. However, we have important things to do here. I will be speaking in favour of this, in spite of the fact I would like to be at home with my fiancée.

It was suggested by the opposition that there is no public interest, that it is not urgent that we stay here. It depends on how one sees Bill C-38. I do not think there is anyone in the House who would deny that same sex marriage is a passionately debated issue in the country. There are very strong feelings on both sides of this issue. I do not think there are any members of Parliament who would suggest that they do not have constituents on both sides of this issue and constituents who feel very passionately about this.

We have had a lengthy debate in the House. We have all received a great deal of correspondence and discussion over the last year from our constituents. In fact, the Conservatives and the independent member on the other side explained this afternoon the huge number of witnesses we have had and the lengthy debate in committee.

Now that we have had all this, I do not think there is any member of Parliament who would really want to maintain the nation in this state of divisiveness. Everyone has had input. Members have talked to the people they want to and they can now make a decision. We should set the country at rest and allow everyone to vote with their conscience on what they have gleaned from the debate.

The second reason why I do not think we should wait is that court decisions have led to a situation where there are certain people in the nation who are not treated equally. We have a situation that this bill would remedy, where all the people in Canada would be treated the same.

It may not be important to persons that it does not apply to, but it is to persons who have been caught up by the court decisions and feel that they are not equal. I think it is a very important principle in this country. I cannot believe that the opposition would not agree with me that all Canadians should be treated equally and to be in that position as quickly as possible. We have had an exhaustive debate, we are ready to vote, and we should go ahead with it.

I suggest that I am not the only person saying this. In today's Ottawa Citizen it states:

Tories are only hurting themselves. Are they nuts? The Conservatives should be clamouring to dispense with same-sex marriage legislation quickly, the better to hit the barbecues pronto and put this albatross issue at the greatest possible distance from an election call. They should shut up and state their political opposition in classic democratic form--by defiantly voting against the bill at the earliest opportunity,

I would like to turn now to Bill C-48. This is probably the first bill that Motion No. 17 would lead us to in the House. In fact, when we finish this debate, we will be going back to Bill C-48.

I want to ensure that the public has no illusion that we have not had exhaustive discussion about this particular bill. There are four items in the bill including extra money for urban transit. The Liberals, as the House knows, have always contributed toward urban transit, foreign aid, housing and post-secondary education. More money will be added which is only 1% of the budget. It is a small percentage of the budget.

We have had an exhaustive debate on this. We should not let the public think that we have not and that we should bring this to a conclusion. We have had a lot of debate. I would suggest that any similar four lines in any of our budgets, and the budget that the Conservatives voted on already, Bill C-43, would not exceed 1%. I think the hours of debate we have had are as much as there has ever been over 1% of a budget.

The biggest loser in this, and I think this is a bit sad, and I am not sure of the reason for it, is the Bloc Québécois. How can the Bloc members vote against things that they used to be in favour of? How can they join the Conservatives and say they cannot spend on things that they used to spend on?

How can they campaign in the next election and go from house to house saying that there is going to be more smog? How can they say to people that they have to take an old bus and pay higher rates because Ottawa had some money for transit in Quebec but they wanted Ottawa to keep it? How can they not vote for it? How can they say to people that they were very generous during the Tsunami, but now the Bloc does not want to give foreign aid from the Canadian government? How can they join with the Conservatives and not spend this kind of money on foreign aid?

What about when Bloc members are in a shelter or a rental apartment and a family wants to get a home of their own? How can they tell that family that Ottawa wanted to give more money to affordable housing, but, sorry, they had to vote with the Conservatives, and they cannot have that money in Quebec.

When they go to another house and there are a couple of teenagers there who want to go to college, the Bloc members will say that the fees could have been lower. They will say that the government offered to provide more money for that in Bill C-48 and lower tuition fees, but they could not support that. They had to vote with the Conservatives not to spend money on post-secondary education.

Wisely, during the debate on Bill C-48 so far, the Bloc members have not tried to defend why they are voting against those items. They have left the Conservatives at the shooting gallery, but today its House leader, for whom I have great respect and who is a great orator, one of the best if not the best speaker in the House, was squirming. He was trying to come up with johnny-come-lately reasons as to why the Bloc was voting against these measures.

The Conservatives and the NDP had at least tried to make agreements or vote with our party to get a budget through, but the Bloc johnny-come-latelies had no influence on it and they tried to make up reasons at the eleventh hour as to why they might vote against these measures.

I encourage the Bloc to go back to the principles for which many Quebeckers voted for them and were at one time proud of them. I say again, it is not just me saying this. The premier of Quebec and many mayors in Quebec have asked the Bloc Québécois to vote for Bill C-48 for what it would do for Quebec.

I would like to read from a Quebec newspaper. Montreal's The Gazette stated:

Bloc opposes bill giving money to Quebec - why? The problem is that the Bloc Québécois has joined with the Conservative Party to oppose part of this funding. It's bizarre: Cash-strapped Quebec desperately needs this money, and yet a party whose exclusive reason for being is to serve Quebecers' interests is resisting the funding tooth and nail. Yet, if the Bloc's Gilles Duceppe has his way, this extra funding would not materialize. The Bloc's logic escapes me. If passed, C-48 would give money to many causes that the Bloc supports besides public transit - among them affordable housing and foreign aid. Yet the Bloc opposes the bill. A call to Duceppe's office--

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I thank members for their congratulations on my engagement to Melissa Craig of Yukon. Unfortunately, that is probably the last time members will clap for me tonight.

First, I want to answer a couple of questions the last member raised. One of the question was on affordable housing. He suggested we were do nothing on that file. However, we have invested $1.9 billion a year to support 640,000 families in existing social housing units.

In 2001 we added $680 million over five years to help increase the supply of affordable rental housing. I would not say that is nothing. It was so successful that in 2003 that we added another $320 million. We also put $128 million into renovations programs, which I know are very popular in my riding. We have been active since 2000, with almost $3 billion, in affordable housing.

The other point he made was related to farming. I am glad he raised that. Opposition members a number of times have gone off topic when we have talked about farming. I am sure a number of them come from farming territory. They should understand the programs that the Government of Canada has available for farmers.

However, some of those members have suggested that there are absolutely no programs. The member of Ontario suggested that. I do not know if they were not here the day that we announced $1 billion, shortly after the budget, for the farm community in the member's riding of Ontario.

In 2005 we made a farm income payment of $144 million. In 2004 we had the transitional industry support of $137 million. In 2003-04 we had the agricultural application program of $192 million in production insurance. In 2004 we expected $45 million to go to producers. In 2004 we had the spring credit advance payments of $236 million in interest free advances. March 2 and 3 this year producers had funds in CAIS above the third deposit and were able to withdraw money. We assume that is another $160 million for farmers. We put $53.6 million in the tobacco assistance program.

On April 1, the environmental stewardship activities was announced in the amount of $57 million. The annual research in agriculture was $70 million. We just announced another $9.4 million in sciences innovation in five years over the APF program. That is just for one province. They also have access nationally to Canada's $488 million repositioning strategy and also $50 million to the Canadian Cattlemen's Association.

If they want to be viewed as credible, they should at least acknowledge what is there for their constituents and ensure they can access them. Then they can start on that base to criticize and suggest improvements.

We are here to debate Motion No. 17 which extends the sitting of the House so we can carry on its business. It does not specify which motions, but it means we will be back next week, if it passes, sitting until midnight every night, as we have been this week, to get important work done.

The House leader and our whip have made it quite clear that two of our priorities are Bill C-38 and Bill C-48. We have had much discussion about that this afternoon and before.

I just want to make a brief comment on the results of passing the motion tonight. As opposed to going home, and I know all of us would like to be in our constituency where we have important things to do--

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite spent $250 million per vote to stay in power, to cling to power. It is nothing more or less than that.

As far as the corporate portion of it, I will refer to his own finance minister when Bill C-43 was before the House. This is not what we are debating today. We are debating a motion that is closing debate upon whether we should extend this House or not, which is a slap in the face for democracy. There is nothing that urgent or is of the public interest to the degree where we should try to ram through the two bills, Bill C-48 and Bill C-38, when there is absolutely no reason for it.

Bill C-48 will not be implemented until August 2006. Where is the urgency in that? The only urgency is that the Liberals are trying to tie that bill into somehow justifying a public interest, when they really want to ram through Bill C-38, the same sex marriage bill, which nobody in Canada wants in particular. They simply want to live up to their deal with the NDP, a deal cooked up in the middle of the night to stay in power.

Let me read the response that was made by the finance minister. He said, “You can't do anything to this budget”, when the NDP leader went fishing. The NDP leader then asked if he would change his mind. The finance minister replied that he would make technical changes but nothing substantive.

The NDP went fishing a little further and asked the finance minister if he would consider doing something further. They talked about the corporate tax break that would create jobs and allow for investment.

Here is what the finance minister said:

Mr. Speaker, that is really like asking whether I would be prepared to buy a pig in a poke. Quite frankly, no minister of finance, acting responsibly, would answer that type of question.

If the hon. gentleman has a serious proposition, please bring it forward and I will give it the consideration it deserves. I would point out to him, however, that the changes in corporate taxation are intended to ensure that jobs, jobs, jobs stay in Canada.

What do they have against jobs? No one has anything against jobs, jobs, jobs.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as we look at the Standing Orders presently, there is no question that the calendar of this House is a fairly significant event that is agreed to, according to the Standing Orders, by the House leaders.

According to the Standing Orders, during the adjourned period when members of Parliament are in their constituencies, the House does not get called back unless there is need for royal assent on something that is of some urgency. If that is the case, the House can be called back for a short period.

The Standing Order 28(4) reads:

The House shall meet at the specified time for those purposes only; and immediately thereafter the Speaker shall adjourn the House to the time to which it had formerly been adjourned.

When we have a calendar it ought to be respected and, if it needs to be interrupted, then after the particular business is done the House needs to go back into adjournment. There needs to be a reason for the House to reconvene that is of substance.

This House could probably be guided by Standing Order 28(3) which talks about the Speaker utilizing his or her discretion to recall the House. It states:

Whenever the House stands adjourned, if the Speaker is satisfied, after consultation with the Government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time, the Speaker may give notice that being so satisfied the House shall meet....

Therefore there needs to be some evidence that would satisfy the Speaker. There has to be some public interest that requires an interruption of the House calendar.

I would think this House would at least have to satisfy those same principles before this House could put forward a motion that would require this House to extend itself for a further period. What is the public interest?

We have heard discussion about Bill C-48. It does not get implemented until next year. In fact, when we look at the budget implementation portion of it, it talks about the moneys actually being requisitioned or looked at in the next year. What is the urgency? This is not in the public interest. This could be debated in the fall sitting. In fact one could argue that perhaps there is something to Bill C-43 passing.

Bill C-43 has cleared this particular House and is now in the Senate chamber for approval. We have a senator saying that the Conservative senators were prepared to expedite the passage of Bill C-43, the budget legislation bill, which includes the Atlantic accord, but that the Liberal senators were refusing to pass it. He also said that they agreed to waive certain procedural steps in order to speed the passage of Bill C-43.

He goes on to say:

Two other government bills are receiving clause-by-clause consideration immediately following testimony by witnesses in Senate Committees today. The Liberal government will not permit the same procedure to be followed for Bill C-43, thus putting the bill at risk should Bill C-48, the NDP budget bill, be defeated in the House of Commons in the next few days.

We just received notice that those two bills are here for royal assent.

How is it that the Liberal government, on one hand, says that it wants the bill to go forward so the funds can start rolling on that particular bill, but on the other hand, refuses to have it passed expeditiously, as it could have? I think it is playing games with this House.

Let us look at the marriage bill, Bill C-38. Is there a public interest to have it passed or at least a public interest sufficient to call the House back to order when it ought to be adjourned? What is the public interest in that bill? In fact, a large percentage of the Canadian public do not want that bill to pass. Therefore it is definitely not in the public interest to call Parliament back for that purpose and that purpose alone.

What has the government done? It has attempted to lump and link Bill C-48 with Bill C-38, the marriage bill, in an attempt to justify, on some kind of national basis, that it is in the public interest to reconvene the House. However this is not in the public interest. It is all subterfuge. It is all playing with the rules to get their ends.

The House leader stated earlier in the press that he was prepared to not have Bill C-38 pass if Bill C-48 passed, but then he changed his mind, dug in his heels and decided to connect the two and call Parliament back for that purpose.

What is the rush? Bill C-38 is fundamentally changing the definition of marriage. It is fundamentally changing society as we know it. It deserves the time that is needed to discuss it and the public need an opportunity to participate. What we had at report stage was a sham.

During question period today the member for London—Fanshawe asked whether limiting the witnesses at the committee was really doing the job it ought to be doing. Is it appropriate to give witnesses 24 hours or 48 hours notice to appear? Is changing members of the committee appropriate? Is setting up a separate committee to ram through the committee hearings appropriate? Those hearings should have been the widest possible hearings across the country in every city with every member of the public having an opportunity to address the government before that bill completed report stage.

However the Liberals are ramming it through, despite the concerns of Canadians, despite public interest and despite our nation's interest, because they want to. They have confused national agenda and public interest with their own interest. They have confused the House of Commons calendar, which should not be interfered with easily, with their own ends and their own desires.

I think it is appalling. It is appalling to democracy and it is appalling to this institution for the government to go further and put a motion in the House that would limit debate on whether the hours and sittings of this House should be extended. How can it be in this free and democratic country that we cannot have every member in the House speak to whether the preconditions exist for the House to be extended?

We have to justify the pre-conditions of the House. That is why the Standing Order is there. That is why there are safeguards. We cannot, just on a notion, say that we will pass a motion that will change the Standing Orders and call the House back because we want to. There must be some basis for that and that basis is the public interest, because that is the basis, Mr. Speaker, that you might have to contend with.

The Liberals chose not to allow every member in the House to speak. Since when does a government decide that closure is the way to go on an issue so important as whether or not this House should sit in the summer to deal with the marriage bill, Bill C-38.

This is not a national crisis. This is not a national public interest that requires us to do it. The Prime Minister and the government confuse their own interests with the interests of the nation.

When the Prime Minister appeared on television I thought he was going to speak to something that was of national interest or of some national crisis, or even perhaps proroguing Parliament or calling an election.

What was the purpose of that particular television address? At great expense to this nation and every taxpayer of Canada, the purpose of that television appearance was to protect the hide of the Prime Minister and his government because they were on the ropes of losing in a possible election. He used the media and the resources of government to bolster public opinion and that is shameful.

Even the NDP leader acknowledged that. In question period he said, “First, let me add my voice to those who are concerned about the televised address this evening. This is a Liberal crisis; it is definitely not a national crisis.” The government is confusing its own interests with those of the nation.

In the next question, the hon. leader went fishing to see if he could change the government's budget. He said, “Putting aside the issue of corruption, let me see if I can be bought”. How could he do that? He was speaking about the sponsorship scandal and the things that have happened. People were paid for doing little or nothing with Canadian taxpayer dollars for which many people worked very hard to put in the coffers of the government. Some people work 12 hours a day, six days a week, only to lose half of their money to the government to spend on projects and programs.

However we find the government using and abusing those funds to pay ad agencies for little or no work and then having some of that money filter back to the party to fund an election. It was buying votes at $250 million per member to get another party's support to cling to power and giving people positions to cross the floor. Those are the kinds of things that should not happen in the House but it gets worse than that.

The House raised a motion of confidence, if not directly, certainly indirectly. At that point, constitutionally, the Prime Minister and his government had an obligation to Canadians and to the House to raise the issue of confidence themselves and they did not have confidence. They did not have confidence for a week.

The House should have been closed shut. There should not have been one order of business happening until that issue of confidence was settled. For that week we were without a government because it should not have been exercising the powers of government, the levers of government, the position of government to advance its own interests.

However all the while we had ministers and the Prime Minister travelling across Canada signing deals, committing money, spending money, campaigning at public expense and doing the kinds of things that would be shameful in a third world country that is run by a dictatorship.

We should have closed the House down and went to the wall to prevent that from happening because it was an injustice. It was illegitimately trying to legitimize government. It waited until it had the numbers and then it put forward an issue of confidence, and that is wrong.

What is wrong with the government is that it confuses its own interests with the interests of Canada.

We expect far better. We expect to have a government with vision. We expect to have a government that is prepared to take a loss, prepared to sacrifice on behalf of the country and one that puts the country's interest above its own, above its own greed and its own temptations, not a government that tries to shove a bill through the House when the public of Canada does not want it.

We need a government with backbone and a government with the courage to lose if it has to. An election should have been called and that confidence vote should have been respected. The public would have made a decision on Bill C-38.

Now the Liberals are trying to ram it through. It would not surprise me if they would put closure on Bill C-38 and Bill C-48 to get their will, despite the will of the people of Canada. That is wrong and the people of Canada will pass judgment. Believe me, it will not end in this session and it will not end in the summer.

I am prepared to stay here in July, all of August and into September to preserve the democratic right of the people of the country to express their views through members of Parliament on Bill C-38 because what is happening here is wrong.

One could ask whether I was looking at this objectively. I would like to make reference to an article in the Toronto Sun . Chantal Hébert said, “One thing we have learned from the tape affair is that precious little stands between the Prime Minister and a repeat of the sponsorship scandal. It is a culture that's wrong. It is what permeates government that's wrong. It is the thing that says the end justifies the means. It doesn't matter how we get there, it just matters that we get there. Our objective is to stay in power and we'll do whatever we have to, twist and bend every rule we have to stay in power”.

Supply day motions happen once a week every week and it was during that time that a confidence motion could have been put by any one of the parties, including our party. The Liberals took those supply days away and the ability to make a confidence motion until the end of May.

Why was that? To me, that was something I expected to happen every week. It was tradition. It was something the House had as a constitutional kind of arrangement that happened week after week. The Liberals took it away for the sole purpose of preventing confidence because they knew they would lose. They then put them at the end of May. Why? So any election would take place in the middle of summer.

They wanted to have the opportunity to continue to buy, pay, promise, and get to the position where they could win and then call it. There is something fundamentally wrong with that. There is something very wrong with that. That is why the country is going astray. It needs some direction. It needs some commitment. It needs someone with some backbone who says there is a right, there is a wrong, that this is right and we will do it, regardless of whether it costs us or not, and not what we see here.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would have to disagree with the hon. member. I see both bills as being critical and important for this country. I presume that the member has an issue with the mayors across this country and the premiers who are asking to adopt this bill as soon as possible. It is very important and critical that it does take place.

On the matter of Bill C-38, I also disagree with the member. It is an issue of human rights. It is an issue of the charter. Unfortunately, the hon. member does not support the particular view I share.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out a couple of errors in the member's statement and then I would like to ask him a question or get a commitment from him if I can.

First, he said Bill C-48 needs to be passed because it delivers urgent funding. I do not think he has read the bill because it cannot deliver the funding until next year when the government determines whether or not it has a surplus, a surplus of a particular amount. Not only that, there is no commitment within those four areas to spend anything. I hope he reads through the bill, so he will find the accurate information.

Second, Bill C-38 is not about human rights, as he said. It is about the redefinition of a traditional institution which the majority of Canadians still defend. He said we cannot possibly adjourn with such important legislation before us. I want to point out that this morning the House leader said that we are here for debate. That is actually true except he is cutting off debate. The government is trying to have it both ways and, as usual, it will blame other people for this.

I expect the government members, once they have been here for a couple of extra days, will get tired of being here. I would not be the least bit surprised if they played around with closure on these two bills.

Since the member said that we cannot adjourn with such important legislation before us, will he commit right now to refuse to go along with closure if it is brought in on both Bill C-48 and Bill C-38?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe all members come to the House with intentions to serve the public. I am still baffled. How will we serve the public by adjourning the House with such important matters at stake?

Bill C-48 has the support of many premiers. Mayors across the country are asking us to adopt this law before the recess for the summer. It is a bill that will provide $4.5 billion in urgent funding for the environment, training, post-secondary education, affordable housing and foreign aid. We are talking about that, and we are dealing with that in the motion.

The other important critical matter, Bill C-38, which I feel is fundamental as well for the country, is in keeping with our charter rights. It is a fundamental human rights issue to me and to many members of the government and we need to deal with it.

It is evident, unfortunately, that both Bill C-48 and Bill C-38 are not supported by the opposition. That is regrettable because I think they are very much supported by most Canadians.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke about using tactics to stop the work of Parliament. He talked about using procedural steps that would prevent Parliament from doing its work.

I would like to remind him and all other members present that the Liberals day after day in the latter part of May came in with motions to concur in committee reports, debating them endlessly to avoid carrying on with the business of Parliament. For him to somehow imply that others are doing that is really quite inaccurate. It was they who wasted so much time earlier this year that we are now in this position.

Furthermore, I resent him implying that by I, my colleagues, others in opposition and members on the government side taking the time to debate motions is a waste of time. After all, what is this place supposed to be. It is Parliament. If I am not mistaken I believe the French word “parler” means to speak. I think the word “parliament” comes from the same root word. This is the speaking place.

I sometimes tell my grandchildren that I work in the word factory. We are using words here hopefully to put ideas back and forth. In our debates we should hopefully be able to adjust and amend our rules, laws and motions so they are best for the country. I firmly and strongly contend that the agenda the government is now proposing, to extend the time of sitting, reduces the time when we should be keeping the commitments we have made to our constituents and others around of the country. Instead, the government has said that we need to be here to debate Bill C-48 and Bill C-38.

As our daily prayers state, our work here in Parliament is to pass good laws and make wise decisions. In this instance, being able to stop that or at least slow it down is beneficial for Canadian voters, our taxpayers and our citizens. We will make better laws if we can engage in a debate. This motion needs to be stopped.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about Government Motion No. 17 to extend the sitting period. I want to thank the members who voted in favour of the closure motion to put an end to the debate on this motion.

The aim of the motion is simple. The official opposition is obstructing the adoption of important bills before the House.

The official opposition continues to refuse to support the motion. In fact, the opposition House leader moved an amendment to the motion to have the House adjourn today and resume in September without completing further government business. As a result, the government gave notice of closure yesterday to which the House has now agreed.

This week, the Premier of Quebec asked Parliament to support Bill C-48. Mayors across Canada are also insisting on the need to immediately adopt this bill so that they can begin planning effectively for the future, in the knowledge that these federal measures will be adopted and that they can go forward.

Bill C-48, which supplements the budget, sets aside $4.5 billion in emergency funding for the environment, training and post-secondary education, affordable housing and international aid. This bill must be adopted without delay.

The opposition is also obstructing the adoption of Bill C-38 on civil marriage. The government recognizes that one of the purposes of the debate in the House is to help people make up their minds on the topic. However, all the members have done so. Debate should not be used to delay Parliament's decision. All hon. members know that the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness held Canada-wide hearings on civil marriage in 2002-03.

Furthermore, we had a long debate on Bill C-38 at second reading. In committee, we heard from witnesses on all aspects of the bill. A Globe and Mail editorial yesterday stated, “There is nothing materially useful to add. It's time for Parliament to vote on the bill, and for all parties to let the Commons have its say”.

Canadians elected us to work together for their interests. The government has lived up to its commitment to try to make this minority Parliament work in the service of the interests of the people who elected us.

We do not agree with the official opposition that procedural tactics should be used simply to delay the House from voting on urgent matters. The consequence of these delays is that the House will have to return next week to complete urgent business.

I call on all members to support the motion to extend the sitting of the House so we can complete the work Canadians have elected us to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, as members have pointed out so well, there is no national agenda. That is not why we are talking about extending the hours.

I had a couple of thoughts, as I listened to the House leader this morning. It seemed to me there was hardly a discussion, out of the normal discussion we have in June about staying or going or whatever, until about a week ago. The House leader had newspapers interviews and committed himself to a couple of positions, which I do not think even the Prime Minister knew he was being committed to it. That included passing Bill C-48 and Bill C-38.

This was the first time any of us had heard that had to happen or else we would not be leaving this place. He probably was so far out on a limb that he did not saw the branch off behind him. I would think this is one of the reasons we find ourselves in the situation we are in today.

The second reason we find ourselves debating Motion No. 17, which will allow the government to force Bill C-38 through, is the government does not want to take this home for the summer. The Liberals do not want to debate the issue over the summer. They feel if they go home with this issue, they will be hammered on it. I think they think, rather than allow us to come back in the fall and fully debate the issue, if they can ram it through as quickly as possible, then Canadians will forget about it. I would suggest Canadians will not forget about it.

To demonstrate that the government does not have a national agenda and that there is not an urgency in this, as it proclaims there is, in the other place the government has been delaying the implementation of Bill C-43. When the bill was in the House, at different times, particularly with the Atlantic accord, we tried get it accelerated so the government could begin disbursing money to Atlantic Canada.

On every occasion we tried to do that, the Liberal government stopped it from happening. Now that it is in the Senate, the government is once again trying to stop the passage of the bill. The Conservative senators have asked for this to be fast-tracked and they have offered to do that, but the Liberal government, which is in the business of blaming everyone else, has to take responsibility for this. It has refused to allow the bill to be fast-tracked.

I would like the member's comments on a couple of those observations?

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary North Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I address the question of the time extension, I want Canadians and the residents of my riding of Calgary Centre-North to be clear on what is happening here.

We have had a motion of closure, which has been addressed, and a decision is now before us to extend the sitting hours of the House. The effect of the closure, coupled with this extension of the sitting time of the House, is to permit the Liberal government to ram through several pieces of legislation. I predict that this is the first in a series of closure motions that will happen beneath the umbrella of this time extension that Canadians will see over the course of the next seven days.

The underlying purpose of what the Liberal government is attempting to do is to override Standing Order 28(2), the Standing Orders that provide for the operation of this House, and to do so in circumstances where there is no emergency. There is no emergency in this country and there is no necessity for this time extension.

What is being proposed is that the government sacrifice the parliamentary calendar, which is constructed into Standing Order 28(2,) and to do so for its own political expediency and its own political purposes, rather than for any national purpose or national emergency, which is required.

At this time there are two controversial pieces of legislation before this House: Bill C-48, which I have referred to as the NDP budget bill; and Bill C-38, the marriage bill. Both of these are important pieces of legislation. I will turn to them in more detail as I proceed, but I think it would be fair to say on behalf of all members of the House that both of these pieces of legislation have attracted considerable attention and considerable controversy. They are bills in respect of which there are many differing opinions in this House and many parliamentarians who wish to speak on behalf of their constituents with respect to both of those issues.

The question that is before us this afternoon is why the government has found it necessary to invoke closure to force the extension of the sitting hours of the House of Commons to deal so quickly with these two pieces of legislation that have been before the House for some time.

As I begin, I note, parenthetically, that this is not the government's calendar which it seeks to change, it is the calendar of the House of Commons. It is the calendar that was arrived at and negotiated with considerable care on behalf of all Canadians. In fact there was a Standing Orders committee that grappled with the whole question of the parliamentary calendar. This parliamentary calendar that we have today was adopted after considerable thought. Two different committees at two different points in time studied this Standing Order, and the purpose of the Standing Order, frankly, was to bring some order to the calendar of the House of Commons and to ensure that we were able to balance the difficult schedules of members of Parliament with the business of the House of Commons.

The Standing Orders were arrived at, as I understand it, with an all party consensus, and they should not be changed lightly.

Earlier today the Liberal member for Sarnia--Lambton objected to what the government was attempting to do here, which is to railroad through these two pieces of legislation. He referred to is as “legislation by exhaustion”. I might add to that terminology, legislation by closure because the use of the closure motion is an essential part of the strategy that the government is pursuing.

I would like to discuss the hypocrisy of the government in proceeding in such an undemocratic way to deal with two pieces of legislation that are very controversial and in respect of which there are a wide range of opinions in this House. I think we can all agree that, by definition, the invocation of closure, coupled with the extension of the sitting hours, involves steps that are undemocratic because the House will not have adequate time to deal with the legislation that is before it.

One only has to examine a handful of documents to fully appreciate the duplicity and the hypocrisy of the Prime Minister and his government House leader.

I would like to take members, first, to the Prime Minister's swearing in. The Prime Minister was sworn in on December 12, 2003, and any analysis of failed expectations and hypocrisy must, by definition, begin on that date.

At that time the Prime Minister said, “We are going to change the way things work in Ottawa...to re-engage Canadians in the political process”. He stated that this would be his number one priority or at least one of his many number one priorities.

Nothing was said at that time about invoking closure. Nothing was said at that time about ramming through legislation at the close of session under the cover of night. Nothing was said at that time about limiting the debate of the elected representatives of the Canadian people.

The only thing we heard was the hypocritical statement, which we now know was hypocritical because there was no intent to honour it, “We are going to change the way that things work in Ottawa”.

We are certainly doing that but to no avail and not to the benefit of Canadians.

The throne speech followed shortly after that. If people want to understand what the government is doing with Bill C-48 and Bill C-38, they need only go back and look at the throne speech of February 2, 2004 where the government said:

We must re-engage citizens in Canada’s political life. And this has to begin in the place where it should mean the most -- in Parliament -- by making Parliament work better.

Further on in the speech it states:

The Government of Canada is determined to return Parliament to the centre of national debate and decision making....

The speech contained references to more free votes and to enhanced roles for members of Parliament to shape laws. It then states:

Significantly enhancing the role of all MPs will make Parliament what it was intended to be -- a place where Canadians can see and hear their views debated and their interests heard. In short, a place where they can have an influence on the policies that affect their lives.

Later in the same throne speech it states:

Canadians expect government to respect their tax dollars. They want to have the confidence that public money -- their money -- is wisely spent.

Is that not curious? There is nothing in the throne speech about invoking closure. There is nothing in the throne speech about closure coupled with extension of sitting times to ram through two pieces of legislation that Canadians consider to be important. There is nothing about closure, nothing about shortening debate and nothing about truncating public discussion.

Perhaps someone from that side of the House, someone with a shred of integrity, would be able to explain how to reconcile what the government promised in the throne speech in February 2004, with the conduct that we have seed from the government over the last several days.

However it gets better from there. On February 4, 2004, two days after the throne speech, the government put forward a document entitled “An Action Plan for Democratic Reform”. The document talks about the three pillars of democracy that the Prime Minister values. The second pillar is about restoring the representative and deliberative role of members of Parliament.

The report goes on to state that “Democratic reform will reconnect parliamentarians with Canadians by giving MPs greater freedom to voice the views and concerns of their constituents.

The document continues on to say:

What this means for individual Canadians is that the people they elect will be able to better reflect their views in the process of government. It also means increased responsibilities for individual Members of Parliament to ensure that these reforms result in real change.

The action plan for democratic reform says nothing about closure, nothing about the extension of time coupled with closure, nothing about eliminating the rights that the members of Parliament in this House have to participate in debate, and nothing about limiting the parliamentary freedom of our constituents by pushing forth two pieces of legislation without having a full and adequate opportunity in this House to carry on with the debate during the regular sitting of the House.

If one looks at the action plan for democratic reform itself, entitled “Ethics, Responsibility and Accountability”, we see that in this document there is of course a letter from the Prime Minister himself, in which he states:

Parliament should be the centre of national debate on policy...Members [of Parliament] should have greater freedom to voice their views and those of their constituents, reinforcing the role of House Committees...

I do not see anything in the letter from the Prime Minister about what the government is attempting to do in this case with Bill C-48, which I will come to in a few moments. I see nothing about that in the letter from the Prime Minister or in the letter from the House leader that accompanies this same document, in which he says:

Secondly, we must restore Parliamentarians' role in generating authentic, thoughtful, and constructive debate.

If the government believes in this, if it has any sincerity in believing in this, why is it not prepared to take Bill C-48 in particular, bring it forward and continue with debate according to the parliamentary calendar? If this means that third reading of this bill is secured when the fall session resumes, then so be it. What is the urgency of proceeding with closure, coupled with an extension of time, to ram this piece of legislation through the House of Commons at this point in time?

If we carry on and read this document it is breathtaking to appreciate what this government has said and how it just does not measure up with its conduct in terms of democratic reform in this country.

On page 1 of the February 2004 document, “An Action Plan for Democratic Reform”, we have the following statement:

Democratic institutions must constantly adapt and change in order to ensure that the process continues to work the way it was intended. Individuals, through their elected representatives, must have a strong voice in the great debates facing the nation. There needs to be real exchanges of opinion and constructive dialogue between Members of Parliament, reflecting the views of the people they represent.

In a statement of general principles that follows, we have item 3:

Parliament should be a national forum for debating and shaping national policies and legislation and for considering regional concerns and issues.

Principle 4 states:

Members of the House should have more opportunity to express their own views and those of their constituents.

Principle 5 states:

House Committees should have the resources and mechanisms necessary to become a central focus of debate, and to shape and modify legislation.

What is astounding is that none of these principles are being followed by this government in its conduct in dealing with Bill C-48, the NDP budget legislation.

Carrying forward from there, just this week we have had this government table in the House of Commons a document dated June 22, 2005, the first annual “Report on Democratic Reform”. It has such a noble title, but it is a litany of hypocrisy to read because this is a government that is not committed to the implementation of the ideas and the concepts that are set out in this report on democratic reform.

Once again there is a letter from the Prime Minister. He says that “Parliament must have greater ability to hold the government to account. Responsibility for democratic renewal rests with all parliamentarians. Democratic renewal must be an ongoing process”.

If the Prime Minister sincerely believes in that, why have they brought forward a closure motion coupled with an extension of time in an effort to ram through Bill C-48, the NDP-Liberal budget, which has flaws that we will talk about in a few moments and which should be carefully scrutinized by Parliament?

The government House leader, who has had the temerity to stand in this House and strong-arm the House with the closure motion, coupled with the motion which is currently before the House, has had the audacity, in the June 22, 2005 annual report, to author several invitations, saying that he looks forward to working with parliamentarians because, in his view, “enhancing the ability of Parliamentarians to represent their constituents and to shape public policy is essential in building public confidence in Canada's political institutions”.

If he believes that, why is he not prepared to have a full, complete and fulsome debate on Bill C-48 in the fullness of time, according to the parliamentary calendar?

He said later in the letter that he looks forward to working with all of his colleagues. The government carries on. The importance of restoring the representative and deliberate role of members of Parliament is discussed, as are the key principles of democratic reform. It is all here, but there is nothing in this document that talks about closure. There is nothing in this document about democratic reform, which talks about abrogating the parliamentary calendar and forcing Parliament to deal with legislation on a shortened process, on what the member for Sarnia--Lambton has referred to as “legislation by exhaustion”.

Paradoxically, there is nothing about that in any of the documents I have referred to, all of which come from the Prime Minister and the government, nothing which talks about that sort of a truncated parliamentary process that we are seeing from the government.

That brings me to Bill C-48, the so-called second budget bill, the NDP budget, which is one of the pieces of legislation which the government seeks to ram through under its current strategy.

I continue to believe that the bill is an abomination which violates the parliamentary expenditure process and which subjects Canadians to overtaxation and to expenditure without representation. I abhor it and I oppose this legislation.

It carries the rather hopeful title of “An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments”. The certain payments total $4.5 billion, and the net effect of this legislation is to create a fund of surplus taxes from which the Liberals have purchased 19 NDP votes in the House of Commons. This is a bill that is two pages in length, has no details whatsoever and authorizes the expenditure of $4.5 billion of public money.

How can that possibly be reconciled with the first annual report on democratic reform from the Prime Minister, where he says that he wants to see a deliberative role for the House of Commons and he wishes to see the House of Commons more carefully scrutinize the public expenditure process?

This, in fact, is not a budget at all. It is nothing more than a vague set of promises made to the NDP with the hard-earned tax dollars of Canadians.

It is only within the context of this Liberal government that we could even have something like Bill C-48, because this is a government which confuses the money of Canadians with its own money. This is a government which is spending future surpluses.

Let us stop for a moment and consider that. The government would need to accumulate $8.5 billion in surplus taxes--effectively overtaxation of $8.5 billion--to drive the expenditures which are promised in Bill C-48. In effect, the bill creates a political slush fund which will be financed from surpluses in 2005-06 and 2006-07 and will be spent by the government.

On behalf of the citizens of my riding, I note that this is one of a number of very curious things which have been happening in the House. The bill contains no details as to how these moneys will be spent and what they will be spent on, other than in the vaguest of details.

Let us examine the bill. It is less than two pages in length. It is about 900 words in total, and it is $4.5 billion, and the strategy that the government has embarked on is to limit the debate on this legislation.

Who then will be reviewing these expenditures on behalf of the citizens of Canada? Clearly the way the government is proceeding, it will not be this Parliament. The bill compromises the public finances of Canada. And since when did the citizens of Canada agree to be governed in this fashion? The legislation is entirely inconsistent with our traditional of fiscal responsibility. It is entirely inconsistent with the commitments that were made to Canadians in the last election.

No one, certainly no one in my riding, has ever consented to pay taxes at a level which would cover the cost of administering the Government of Canada and in addition to that the cost of creating a $4.5 billion fund of surplus taxes which the Liberal government can spend on matters sought by the NDP.

This is fiscal irresponsibility. It is good governance stood on its head. It is tantamount to a legislative commitment to $4.5 billion in overtaxation. It requires thorough debate and it requires debate according to the Parliamentary calendar. There is no reason to abrogate that calendar and rush this legislation through.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. It is about extending the sitting hours. As I have said before, I am one of those who approves of us sitting here. We have a responsibility to Canadians. They elect us to do our work. If we have to stay here for two or three weeks longer, we should do that.

I believe it is important for members of Parliament not to abuse their parliamentary privileges in the House, such as filibustering bills when everything has been said on them basically. At one point Canadians expect us to deal with these issues and not just let them drag on forever.

I know these issue are very delicate and sensitive and that many members of Parliament on all sides have had to deal with Bill C-38 on a personal basis. I know I have and it has been extremely difficult. However I believe at some point, in order to deal with the issues, we need to impose certain conditions to do that.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I reiterate my earlier points of order. That was a wonderful speech on Bill C-38 and Bill C-48, but it had absolutely no relevance to Motion No. 17 that we are currently debating.

That being said, the member talked about how people have stated their positions, their minds are pretty well made up and will not change. Yet the Liberals did a complete and absolute U-turn a month or so ago, kind of a conversion on the road to embracing socialism I think, when the NDP went to them and said it had a deal which could keep them in government if they would keep the NDP in money. All of a sudden the U-turn occurred and the Liberals were embracing Bill C-48 that had nothing whatsoever to do with the budget of the Minister of Finance.

The member for Saint Boniface talked about Bill C-48 being essential, that it was urgent, and the dollars were needed. I go back to the budget of the Minister of Finance which did not have a word about all this money for the environment, education or housing. There was not a word.

All of a sudden this conversion on the road to embracing socialism seems to be the new thing for the Liberal Party because it wants to stay in power. This is not about public policy. This is about the personal desire to stay in power. The NDP thinks it is now the tail that can wag the dog and, therefore, it is basking in the new found power. All members on that side of the House are having a wonderful time at the taxpayers' expense.

Bill C-48 will spend up to $4.5 billion of taxpayers' money and is all of two pages in length. There is absolutely no substance to it. It talks about $1.5 billion for education.

I have a question for the member for Saint Boniface, who I know is a new guy and is just coming up to his first anniversary. If the $1.5 billion gets added to the millennium scholarship fund and will be spent over the next 20 odd years, is that going to be sufficient? Does he believe that will be an adequate way to spend this $1.5 billion in the scholarship fund when no one has any idea on what basis it is going to be spent at this point in time? Perhaps he could enlighten us.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to do that. I thought I was very clear that by talking about the urgency of debating Bill C-48 and Bill C-38 the member would understand why I will be supporting the motion to stay next week to debate them. I thought that my process here was extremely clear.

I would like to speak to a third project in my riding, a senior's village. This again speaks to volunteers and just normal citizens who would like to provide seniors with a continuum of care. Bill C-48 is essential because it would provide affordable housing dollars for these people. The tie for me is very obvious, and I do not know why the hon. member does not understand that.

There is some urgency to staying here and debating Bill C-48 and Bill C-38. I am making the point that Bill C-48 is urgent. These dollars are needed in our communities. I am using my community as an example, but I am sure it applies right across Canada. I support additional funding for affordable housing. There are several reasons why we have to act quickly on approving this additional funding.

Bill C-48 covers environment issues, which is the second item I would like to discuss. The bill would allocate $900 million for the environment. Environmental issues are important to all of us.

Contrary to what my hon. colleagues on the other side of the House think, climate change is not a myth. It does exist and it is extremely important that we continue to invest in it. Canadians know that we have made some substantial investments in the Kyoto protocol and we will continue to do that.

The Kyoto protocol is also supported by many developing countries around the world. We understand the impact of global warming and of greenhouse gas emissions. We cannot underestimate their impact on Canadians and on people around the world. The impact of global warming on the north, for instance, is critical. My colleagues from Nunavut, Northwest Territories and Yukon will tell us about the impact it is having on tundra for instance and on icebergs.

These are real problems for Canadians. Bill C-48 proposes to some extent investments in remedying some of these issues. Once again, the tie we are making to the importance of staying here is quite relevant.

We are also seeing some radical changes in weather patterns in Canada as a result of global warming. In my province of Manitoba, two or three weeks ago, we had floods like we had not seen in 100 years. Our colleagues in Alberta are now experiencing the same thing.

These are radical changes to weather patterns. I believe they are connected to global warming. Bill C-48 would invest a considerable amount of money, $900 million to be exact, for climate change issues.

I would like to talk about some of the projects that the government has been funding. The tar ponds in Nova Scotia is a good example. This is one project where hundreds of millions of dollars are needed to resolve one problem. I would like to congratulate my colleagues from Nova Scotia who worked extremely hard to ensure that funding went toward cleaning up these polluted sites.

Mine sites in northern Canada are also totally polluted and need millions of dollars to be cleaned up. The government has been very aggressive in investing in the environment, but we could always do more, and we all believe that.

Bill C-48 would allow us to invest in public transit systems. The city of Winnipeg is discussing exactly that. Members from the province of Manitoba, particularly the city of Winnipeg, would know that almost every Winnipegger uses a car. Not many of them use buses because it is a city that is fairly easy to get around in. We would like to encourage those citizens to use buses and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That is certainly one of our objectives, and it is one of the objectives of Bill C-48. There is an urgency in getting these bills passed.

Bill C-48 will speak to reducing energy costs for consumers who renovate their homes because there is less heat loss and that kind of thing. I really feel that the investment that we will be making is worthwhile and urgent.

The third item in Bill C-48 that we will be investing in with an amount of $1.5 billion is post-secondary education. In the past our government has invested substantially, up to $5 billion a year, in post-secondary education but mostly in the field of research and development.

We realize that it is important to target lower income families to ensure that everyone in Canada has access to post-secondary education. That is certainly one of our objectives. This $1.5 billion investment will certainly assist in attaining that objective.

In my riding I have a university, Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface. I get to speak to students on a regular basis. My nephews and nieces go to Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface. One of the challenges they have is that after a four year post-secondary degree the average debt is $26,000 per student.

We can imagine when they go into a different level of education, to a master's degree or a Ph.D., they may end up with debts ranging from $50,000 to $80,000. I believe that we have a responsibility to alleviate some of that debt and invest in our post-secondary education facilities, institutions and in our students.

The fourth item is international aid. This is an area that I am particularly interested in. I used to be a member of the foreign affairs committee. I had a chance to travel to many Asian countries where people talked to us about Canada's role in the world, not only in terms of our prowess in industry and commerce but in terms of the leadership role that we should be taking when it comes to investing in international aid and the respect that we have worldwide.

For me this was an eye opener. It was my first year as a member of Parliament. I would like to say that I believe that Canada has a responsibility. I believe that we should invest this $500 million in international aid. I am one who believes that we have to play a more aggressive role when it comes to international aid. Therefore, this $500 million investment shows clearly that we are in fact taking our responsibilities seriously and following through on our commitments to playing a lead role on the world stage.

I feel that Bill C-48 is urgent and essential to the well-being of Canadians and I am prepared to extend the sitting hours to ensure we deliver on these commitments.

I would like to speak briefly as well to Bill C-38 because we are here I believe to discuss both bills. This is obviously a difficult issue. It has been a difficult issue over the past months that it has been debated in the House. In my three years as a member of Parliament it has been the most difficult decision that I have had to make. I have made my vote count on this issue. I have decided not to support Bill C-38 and in fact I was free to do just that.

However, I also participated in many debates in the House. I sat and listened to members from all parties discuss their opinions on these issues. It was done in a very respectful way on such a delicate and serious issue. I applaud all members of the House for having discussed it in this way because it is an issue that is very sensitive and very close to many people's hearts.

I feel that it was an issue that was debated very strongly in the House of Commons. Opinions were put forth on both sides of the issue. People had an opportunity to express their views on this issue. I feel members have in fact stated their positions.

After having voted several times on amendments and second reading of Bill C-38, I do not see a lot of movement by members. The justice committee has had an opportunity to travel across Canada. In fact, in Manitoba it came not only to Winnipeg but it ensured that it heard people from rural Manitoba. It visited two towns in Manitoba and it was important for rural people to get their points of view across as well because they may not have necessarily the same point of view as the urban community. I thought the justice committee did an excellent job, came back and reported to the House.

Lately a legislative committee had an opportunity to hear witnesses. I am not sure if it was 56 or 64 witnesses who came forward to testify before the committee and express their concerns. If I am not mistaken, an amendment was put forward that would ensure religious organizations had even stronger protection in Bill C-38, if there was ever an issue with that.

We have been debating Bill C-38 for months on end. The government House leader was talking about 200 hours or so of debate. I believe people know where they stand on this item. I am prepared to vote on it. Canadians want us to deal with it. I think we should sit next week and the week following that if we have to in order to continue debating these issues, but we should rectify these issues and deal with them before we leave for the summer break.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree with you more. I do believe that speaking to the urgency of these matters is precisely why we are here. If we do not think this is important, then perhaps we should go home for the summer.

I believe that discussing Bill C-48 and Bill C-38 are essential. I think we should deal with them before the summer break. This is why I am speaking to both of these issues.

I am sorry I have to repeat this for the hon. member, but in my riding health care was the number one issue by far. My constituents are thrilled that we have invested substantially in health care and that we have made some huge modifications.

If members speak to their constituents, I think they will find that affordable housing is at the top of their minds. In every riding members will find constituents who cannot afford to buy condos or pay the high end rental rates.

My riding is no different. St. Boniface is by all means not a poor riding. It is a middle class riding. Again, with the Manitoba economy heating up the way it is and rent going up by 30% or 40%, people are feeling very uncomfortable with whether they can stay in their current housing accommodations. I am one who believes it is critical that we invest more in affordable housing.

I also would like to speak to a specific project in the heart of my riding. St. Boniface is a well to do neighbourhood, but we have one project of 100 units. The project was dilapidated to the point where people had to leave, but they had no place to go.

Under the initiative of the federal government, we brought together the private sector and the two levels of government. We leveraged their dollars and renovated the 100 units. Residents could then stay in their units. Also rent rates were capped for 10 years so people then knew they could afford to stay.

The federal dollars were essential to leveraging other dollars to ensure people remained in an affordable area in their community.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to the motion to extend the sitting of the House.

I would like to make it very clear that I will vote in favour of this motion. I am on record as early as Monday this week saying that I would be very interested in sitting to deal with the issues at hand, notably Bill C-48 and Bill C-38. I believe they are critical issues for our government to deal with and we should deal with them prior to the summer break.

I would like to begin with Bill C-48, which deals with an additional investment of $4.5 billion, notably in four important sectors to Canadians: affordable housing, the environment, post-secondary education and international aid.

We will be investing $1.6 billion additional in affordable housing. I always like to see how the decisions we make in the House impact our specific ridings. I would like to talk about some projects that are impacted by the new funds for affordable housing in my riding of Saint Boniface.

We have many opportunities, either during elections or between elections and also at various events during the year to meet with constituents. After health care, affordable housing is undoubtedly the most important issue to my constituents in Saint Boniface. They are elated that we have now dealt with health care to a certain extent. We have invested $41 billion over five years in health care.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with debate on the motion regarding the sittings of the House. When that is disposed of, we will proceed to Bill C-48, the budget legislation, and Bill C-38, the civil marriage bill.

While I will not speculate any further than that, I understand the vote this evening will take place at 8 o'clock. Subsequent to the vote, we will see what legislation we would be looking at in the fall. Essentially I will deal with what we are speaking to after question period. Once the motion is disposed of later this evening, we would then proceed to Bill C-48 and subsequent to that, Bill C-38, the civil marriage bill.

Extension of Sitting Period

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, clearly one of the things that we have said consistently in the official opposition is there has to be a significant balance of tax relief to Canadians who are so overtaxed. Many of them are unable to make ends meet. We have always said that we would not only help Canadians but would help stimulate the economy as well. My colleague is correct. This is one of the reasons we are opposed to Bill C-48.

One thing is beyond me, and I identified that as an inconsistency in my speech, especially with regard to the government. It is the fact that it wants to try to rush Bill C-48 through the House. We have had extensive debate on Bill C-43 and we supported it. Now that the government has the opportunity to start delivering some of the money encompassed in Bill C-43 too Canadians, the Liberal-dominated Senate is holding up the legislation for no clear reasons.

Our Conservative senators have said that they want to get Bill C-43 through the Senate in one sitting. They want to build on what is in the bill to get the money to the communities and cities and to people who have been waiting for it in areas where Canadians have been struggling. Why are the Liberals holding that up?

Now the Liberals want to extend the sitting of this House to deal with Bill C-48 and Bill C-38, but they have no urgency to get Bill C-43 through the Senate.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member hit the nail on the head. We have the NDP fudge-it budget, which is about an illusion. The member for Sarnia--Lambton talked about legal fiction, the use of the word “deemed” in the motion, about making something seem to be something it is not, creating an illusion.

The NDP will not receive any of that money. We know it is contingent spending. It is about creating an illusion and talking about all these things. It will not see any of that money before an election. It is the same thing with Bill C-38. The members cannot answer the protections for religious rights in there.

The member earlier said that there were 28 hours of debate in the House on changing an institution that has served this nation and others for thousands of years. What is the rush?

Could the member comment on how tax cuts, to which members over there are objecting, stimulate the economy, create productivity and competition, which makes our economy competitive worldwide, and allows us to have the jobs that keep their members happy?

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise and speak in this House, although the motion that we are debating today is not one that I am crazy about.

I have the pleasure to follow my colleague, the House leader for the opposition. We were all very thrilled with his performance yesterday in this House. He gave a very bountiful speech, if I may use that word. He was able to address a number of key topics pertaining to this motion that has been put forward by the government, but also a number of other strong issues that we have contention with, the bills that are leading to the extension of the sitting of the House. I speak of BIll C-48 and obviously Bill C-38.

I do not know that I can do as good a job as he did. He spent two hours talking about such pertinent issues and enlightening this place. I know we were all in awe with his ability. I will do my best to speak against Motion No. 17 that we are speaking to today.

My colleague from Sarnia—Lambton spoke in great detail of the precedent that this is setting and the precedents that have been set in the past.

I would not mind taking a moment just to read the motion into the record so that everyone who is following this debate is clear as to exactly what we are debating. The motion reads:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice, when the House adjourns on June 23, 2005, it shall stand adjourned until June 27, 2005; at any time on or after June 27, 2005, a Minister of the Crown may propose, without notice, a motion that, upon adjournment on the day on which the said motion is proposed, the House shall stand adjourned to a specified date not more than 95 days later; the said motion immediately shall be deemed to have been adopted, provided that, during the adjournment, for the purposes of any Standing Order, the House shall be deemed to stand adjourned pursuant to Standing Order 28; commencing June 27, 2005 and concluding on the day on which a motion that the House stand adjourned pursuant to this Order is adopted, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays shall be 12:00 midnight;--

That sounds a little awkward. Obviously for those watching at home it is tough to follow that kind of a motion and really make sense of it. As we heard yesterday, my colleague the opposition House leader put forward an amendment to the motion. It says that according to normal practice, after tonight, the Standing Orders indicate that this House is to rise and be adjourned, and that we strike the rest of the motion that was a little bit confusing and just add that we will return to this place on September 12, which is closer to the current Standing Orders than obviously what the government is proposing.

As my colleague the member for Sarnia—Lambton said, this motion seems to be completely unnecessary, especially as it is changing the Standing Orders for political purposes.

The member for Sarnia--Lambton did indicate that we have seen this before. He rightfully pointed out it was the Conservatives who in fact did that in 1988. Unlike him, I was not in this place at that time, so I do not have the personal account that he was able to relay, but I do recall studying it. I was a student at that time here in Ottawa. I watched what was happening. I remember watching members such as the member for Sarnia--Lambton taking part in debate and being in awe as to what was happening.

I do recall that at that time there was a sense of urgency as to why the Standing Orders were being changed. The issue was free trade. There was some great concern about the timing of that particular bill going through the House and the effect it would have on our economy, and the effect it would have on millions of Canadians, and rightfully so. Clearly, there was a concern as to why the Standing Orders were changed.

We have to address the point that the member for Sarnia--Lambton made, that this attacks the fundamentals of our Standing Orders and the democracy of this particular chamber. The opposition House leader tried to address that point yesterday. Very clearly this is an attack in essence on the way this place functions.

It is frustrating to no end to see those sorts of changes being made by the government. My colleague from Sarnia--Lambton said how vehemently the Liberals opposed the changing of the Standing Orders in 1988 when the government of the day was trying to do it, even though the urgency was definitely there over the time that we have now.

The other thing he was clear to point out which I think we have to be concerned about is that the government is trying to legislate by exhaustion. If one looks around the chamber there have been high emotions, especially with the issues we have been dealing with in the last few weeks. There have been a lot of different opinions. Many of our constituents are looking forward to the return of their MPs back home to do the business that they would be doing in their constituencies.

If we take a step back we see that we have passed Bill C-43. It is currently in the Senate but as we know, the Senate is holding that up and it is out of our control. There has been a sense of urgency with the budget. We supported it to get it through. There were some measures in it with which we could agree.

Now that it has passed this place, the urgency of passing the budget has been deflated. The fact is that with Bill C-48 and Bill C-38, there is no sense of urgency. We could follow the normal Standing Orders, return back home, hear from our constituents and deal with those two pieces of legislation when we returned as normal under the Standing Orders. Again, to use the language of the member for Sarnia—Lambton, changing the Standing Orders for political purposes is really unfortunate. The Liberals are undermining democracy in this place in doing that. The government says it is necessary.

This is to follow up on the reason we are dealing with this motion to extend the sitting. The government says it is necessary to pass the legislation to allow the budget to pass. As I just said, that in fact is false. It seems to me that the Liberal Party continues to play an absurd game with the very budget bill that the Liberals accused the Conservatives of blocking, Bill C-43.

The original budget implementation legislation which includes the Atlantic accord is now being held hostage by a Liberal dominated Senate, which is really beyond my belief. I do not understand what is going on. The government is obviously dominating the Senate. Why now after all that urgency is the Senate holding up Bill C-43? The Liberals I guess have never been really serious about passing the bill. If we could in fact get that bill through the Senate faster, and let us face it, the Conservative senators have said they would be willing to deal with it in one sitting, we could actually get the money for Atlantic Canada, and for the Canadian cities and municipalities that are waiting for it. It would be able to go through a lot faster and we could in fact have that money flowing before we returned in the fall.

It seems to me there is something going on. It seems the government is informing its senators to hold this legislation up. At the FCM convention which I attended recently with the Leader of the Opposition, I challenged the government. We could have dealt with the new deal for cities and municipalities and with the Atlantic accord if the Liberals were willing to remove that part out of the budget. I think they would have had consent from this House to move those pieces of the budget forward so quickly that the money could have been flowing today to those people who need it. But we are dealing with political games and we did not even hear why the Liberals would not remove that portion of the budget. They have added on this new NDP budget that they are saying is so urgent. Why could they not make that particular change to get the money to the people who need it the most?

It is not just my words or the words of my colleagues. We know how much the government House leader likes to quote from editorials. Let me quote from today's editorial in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald which deals with this very subject. It is very informative about the games that I think the Liberals are playing. It goes like this:

The Liberals delayed passing the Atlantic accord through the Senate on Wednesday, and the Tories say they're doing it in a cynical attempt to put pressure on Tory MPs. The Liberal House Leader in the Senate, Jack Austin, turned down an offer from Conservative Senate Leader Noel Kinsella to go to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill last night. If he had accepted the offer - a fairly common procedure - Bill C-43 would have passed today, the bill could have received royal assent this afternoon, and Nova Scotia and Newfoundland would have immediately received big cheques from offshore revenue deals reached with the Liberal government. The deals, reached after months of tough negotiations, are worth $830 million to Nova Scotia and more than $2 billion to Newfoundland, but the federal Finance Department can't cut the cheques until the budget bill is passed. The Liberals don't want the Senate to pass C-43 until the House passes C-48, the $4.5-billion NDP budget amendment, Mr. Kinsella said.

“It's pretty bad that the Liberals would not accept putting through to royal assent their own budget bill”.The Liberals added Bill C-48 to their budget to win NDP support, and the Tories are strongly opposed to the new social spending it contains. When it went to the House for second reading, the Speaker had to break the tie to get it passed and prevent the Liberal government from falling.

This is an editorial that was written today in the Halifax newspaper. It basically says what games the government is playing when in fact we could have this money flowing. It is still holding up the bill in the Senate. It does not make a lot of sense to us who are ready to get that money flowing, and we could actually get out of this place without changing the Standing Orders, the motion that we are debating today. It begs the question, what are the Liberals doing? They have a majority in the Senate. It is their budget. What are they afraid of?

It continues to be demonstrated to us and I think to Canadians that the only reason they keep playing these games is not because they are legitimately concerned about a lot of these issues that they say they are, but because they have a serious issue about hanging on to power. They want to cling to power. They are playing games to do that. They are cutting deals with people in order to save their own political skin.

We are dealing with this motion today, because they have actually neglected their responsibility over the last few weeks in getting this legislation through the House a lot faster.

Our party is strongly opposed to the two major bills, as mentioned by a number of our colleagues, what we call the dangerous and reckless spending in Bill C-48, but also the same sex marriage legislation.

As the official opposition we are not in the business of helping the government pass legislation that we do not think is in the best interests of the country. That is what our House leader said yesterday. We will vote against any extension of the agreed upon calendar so that the government can make up for its own mismanagement of the legislative schedule. We will have as many members as possible in the House to vote on these bills, including the confidence vote on Bill C-48.

I would like to talk for a few minutes on the spirit of Motion No. 17 and why this motion as it relates to Bill C-48 needs to be defeated.

Bill C-48 outlines a host of new spending. I mentioned that in the earlier part of my speech. Canada could have more and better paying jobs, a much higher standard of living, but Ottawa taxes too much and spends too much. We have seen that from the amount of the surpluses over the past number of years. Since 1999-2000, program spending has gone from $109.6 billion to $158.1 billion, an increase of over 44%, a compound annual growth of 7.6%, when the economy itself managed to grow by only 31.6%, a compound annual rate of growth of 5.6%.

We cannot support this motion because it is the curse of the Liberal government that once the Liberals have our money, they cannot resist spending it even faster than the economy is growing. It is not surprising that there is so much waste within the government.

I would like to identify a couple of examples of waste which point out even stronger to a party like ours, the opposition, why we should not give a blank cheque to the government in Bill C-48. I do not have to remind the House and Canadians that the firearms registry is a perfect example of that. The government said it was going after the criminal use of firearms. In the end, we had a piece of legislation that was supposed to cost Canadians $2 million. In fact there are estimates that it is reaching, if not exceeding, $2 billion.

How can there be that kind of exaggerated cost unless there is not a plan in place to deal with it, not to mention the annual cost of that particular program. What sort of value has come back to Canadians on that? Can we actually say we have prevented crimes with guns, that we have actually gone after the criminals and not the duck hunters? I do not think we would find even very many members on the government side who can claim that it has been a successful program. That again came from wasteful spending and without having a clear plan as to how the government should spend the money. The government is asking us to give it that trust again in Bill C-48.

We also saw an unfortunate situation. We know what the problem was in Davis Inlet where we saw children high on gasoline and a lot of other social problems. What was the answer? It was to throw money again at that problem without a real plan.

Now the community has been moved not too far away from where it was originally located, at a cost of about $400,000 per person and the problems have continued to follow. Unfortunately, we have not seen the improvements that we would have liked to see from this kind of social spending. Again, it is the lack of a plan and a knee-jerk reaction to spending.

All of us know how close we came in 1995 to losing the country because of a lack of vision from the current government. What was the solution? Let us throw money at Quebec and try to buy votes through the sponsorship program. What did we get as a result? A complete waste of taxpayer dollars.

We have what we all know as the sponsorship scandal and the continuous fiasco surrounding that with inquiries. We have seen the continuous corruption on the other side. It just proves the point further that it is difficult for the opposition to give free rein to a government which has demonstrated time and time again its inability to manage taxpayer dollars.

I have given the House a few examples here today. I think we could even point to more because more seem to be coming up on a daily basis. We have seen what has happened in Technology Partnerships Canada. My colleague from Edmonton—Leduc has been pressing for an audit to be done on that department. We have seen other examples of that sort of waste. Therefore, it becomes very difficult for us to say we can endorse Bill C-48.

In the years 2003-04 and 2004-05, the Liberals could not help themselves. Program spending rocketed by almost 12%. Per capita program spending by the federal government has reached its highest point in over a decade and it is scheduled to go even higher in the future.

Before we pass the motion and allow more time for Bill C-48 to be debated, perhaps we should look at the record when it comes to budgeting practices of the Liberals. I have talked about the spending, but their budgeting is not that much better.

In 1996-97 real federal program spending per capita was just over $3,000. It will have risen to just over $4,000 in 2005-06. That is an increase of about $800 per capita in volume terms, or just over $3,000 for a family of four. Current Liberal-NDP spending plans will take that spending to almost $4,600 by 2009-10. That is a projected increase of almost $1,200 per person.

Increases in government spending do not necessarily point to solving problems or even getting better results for Canadians through their services. I think most Canadians today would agree. If we look at our health care system and other areas of our social fabric, they have all been damaged by the way the government has managed its budgets as have the services that Canadians continue to get back. Yet they are taxed higher than ever.

It is incredible that the finance minister continuously gets up in this place and says that the government has delivered tax relief to Canadians. If we ask Canadians if they have seen any real tax relief over the time the Liberals have been in power, they will answer quite overwhelmingly that they have not seen anything realistic or substantial handed back to them. Clearly this is something that needs to be addressed. It continues to prove the point why it makes it so difficult for us to support Bill C-48.

We have always believed on this side of the House, especially when it comes to the surpluses, which my House leader spoke to yesterday, that a surplus is the result of the government taxing too heavily. Some of that money should be returned to Canadians, especially when the value for the services is not coming back to them the way it should.

We feel that $1,000 more in the pocket of an average Canadian will go a lot further than in the hands of the government, which seems to misspend their tax dollars. A great example of that would be a $1,000 of savings put into an RRSP, which would initially be worth $1,160. After 30 years, at a rate of 5% return, $1,000 a year invested in an RRSP would be worth nearly $81,000. A $1,000 invested outside of an RRSP at a 5% rate of return would be worth even more in 30 years.

Clearly, we know the government has lost sight of this in its wild attempt to tax, spend and often give very little value back to Canadians, as we have seen. We maintain that we should look at an option of taking the surpluses and looking at effective and meaningful ways to give that money back to Canadians. They are struggling on a daily basis. Many of them cannot make ends meet. Why not give that money back to Canadians so we can have a more productive economy, better paying jobs and Canadians can take care of themselves. We believe hard work should be rewarded. Unfortunately, we are not seeing that.

For the reasons I have identified, it is clear to us in the opposition that we cannot support the motion to extend the sitting of this session on the basis of the wild spending proposed in Bill C-48. It also is an attack of democracy in the House and on the Standing Orders, which we should all be respect and follow, as agreed to by all members in the House.

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again, my friend opposite is somehow tying Bill C-38, Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 together. This is a very simplistic view of the way this works. It is a very simplistic way and the notion of representation is more than just a notion, it is a constitutional obligation upon members of the House.

If one were to take the simplistic view of the member opposite that because someone is opposed to one thing, he or she is opposed to everything, I must ask him if that is indeed the case? How does he reconcile that there are a number of people in his caucus who are supporting the government on Bill C-38, but are opposing Bill C-43 and Bill C-48? How does he reconcile what he says is my inconsistency with the inconsistency which already exists in his caucus?

I find this a fascinating concept. He is saying that the position of his party is to oppose Bill C-38 and apparently that is true. But within their very own ranks, there are people who are supporting Bill C-38. Perhaps when the Conservatives resolve that issue within their own caucus, he could bring that question back again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to what the member said about not being able to connect the dots between Bill C-38, Bill C-43, and Bill C-48. There is a connection. The only way to stop Bill C-38 is to bring down the government.

Why does the member insist on speaking against some of these motions? He may vote against the one before us today. He knows it is going to pass. If he were to vote against Bill C-38, it would help him out at home. He knows, with the way the present situation sits, it is likely going to pass. Yet, when we actually need him to step forward and say it is important to stop the government with respect to Bill C-38 and Bill C-48, he does not appear.

He has that opportunity on Bill C-48. Tonight is not a confidence motion, but we certainly expect to see him. Hopefully, with him and enough of his other colleagues we could defeat that legislation and then we would not be faced with this foolishness that the government is trying to play on Canadians.

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question is interesting, but I would point out to my friend opposite that I have been elected four times.

There seems to be some confusion as to what Bill C-38 actually is. Bill C-38 is not a confidence vote, and that is very clear. In opposing a motion which attacks the fundamentals of the Standing Orders, I fail to draw a line to the fiscal policy of the government. My colleague is putting forward an interesting connect the dots idea, but I am afraid I cannot connect the dots.

Conversely, one could ask him about those in his caucus who support the government on Bill C-38. What is happening within that caucus to do anything about that?

Again, I would point out that Bill C-38 is a contentious matter in the country, of that there can be no doubt. Bill C-38 is a matter on which there is no consensus in the House, of that there can be no doubt. In the end, the question I believe the member has asked is a total non sequitur because what has Bill C-38 got to do with Bill C-43, or indeed Bill C-48?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's stand on this motion as well as his stand on some of the other issues. Liberal backbenchers do occasionally oppose motions like this. Some of them actually oppose Bill C-38 and we applaud that. However, one of the things that concerns me about them is the fact that it really just amounts to rhetoric. When we really need them to stand up and help us out, they disappear on us.

Whenever there has been a confidence vote, those members have supported the government. We have tried to take this issue back to the people because we think that is a good place for it. That would allow those members to say they oppose the legislation, which would help them out at home apparently, but would also allow them to support the government so they do not have to do anything about that.

Is the member not just posturing unless he actually supports us on a confidence motion to bring the government down in order to bring a stop to Bill C-38? When will he step forward and do that, so that he can represent the majority of his constituents who want him to oppose Bill C-38?

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is certainly no shortage of posturing on these issues and, as the member said, it is on their side in abundance.

The member says that Bill C-48 is important legislation. I call it the cobbled together NDP sell out bill as it came on board to prop up Liberal corruption. When the public had an opportunity to hold the Liberals to account, the NDP decided it had an opportunity to advance some of its political ideology that would give it a chance to survive but it basically made the NDP members accomplices.

The members of the NDP keep saying that the money in Bill C-48 will flow, as soon as it passes, to students, to the environment and to other areas of concern, but they seem to forget that the money is contingent on a surplus of some $2 billion. What confidence do the NDP members have that the Liberals will deliver any of that money considering that they are holding up the main budget bill, Bill C-43, in an agreement to pass the main budget? Again, it is political posturing.

The second question comes from the member saying that we have had a lot of debate on Bill C-38. She talked about the justice committee and about the consultations it had with Canadians. Where is the report from that justice committee? The member knows that the committee was shut down before a report on what it had actually heard from Canadians could be tabled in this House.

The members opposite know that Canadians are not in agreement with the change in the definition of traditional marriage. By and large, a majority of Canadians support the traditional definition of marriage, with other accommodations for same sex couples, whether we call it a civil union or some other arrangement that is recognized.

She says that there is no evidence of a religious infringement. She says that it is not just about celebrating a marriage. I want to challenge the member. She is from British Columbia. Surely she has heard of the case of Chris Kempling, a school counsellor in Quesnel, B.C., who was suspended from his job without pay simply because he wrote a letter to the editor expressing his view based on a Christian world view. What about his section 2 charter rights of freedom of conscience and religion?

If members opposite want to wrap themselves in the charter and defend the charter then maybe they should be defending the rights of people like Chris Kempling to express their views on this issue. If they did that maybe we could have some confidence in expanding and understanding the charter. However when they do not respect clearly written charter rights, how can Canadians have confidence that this agenda will stop with this motion?

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's comments. I have not mentioned the bills that are before us right now, particularly Bill C-38. It might be interesting to address some of the misinformation that is out there.

I spoke the other day with a couple of individuals who are strong opponents of Bill C-38. I asked them a simple question. I asked them what would happen the day after if everyone in the House of Commons were to vote against Bill C-38. They said that same sex marriage would then be illegal in Canada. I told them that same sex marriage would be legal in seven provinces and one territory.

The point is that the bill would not change the country. The bill would merely bring into line the small part of the country that has not adopted what has become the status quo in most of Canada geographically. Some people may like it and some people may not, but for those who oppose the bill, the only rational debate, quite frankly, would be whether or not to use the notwithstanding clause. If those who oppose same sex marriage want to do something about it they would need to consider invoking the notwithstanding clause to override the courts.

The reality is that not a single party in the House has offered that solution. What that means is that a lot of what is going on now in the House is political posturing.

I think it is time for the people who oppose same sex marriage to acknowledge that Canadian society has moved on. The reality is that the horse left the barn a long time ago. Unless those who oppose it are willing to invoke the notwithstanding clause, I would submit that they should simply pass Bill C-38.

My question to the member is actually on international aid. Her party is a strong opponent of point seven. Canada puts a lot more money into aid that is not considered, including humanitarian and peacekeeping operations through our military, which amounted to $950 million last year alone.

Would the member not agree that the military's humanitarian and peacekeeping operations, on which Canada spends money, should be considered as part of our official development assistance?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise in the House today to speak to the motion by the government House leader about extending the sitting of the House into next week.

I have been listening to the debate since it began yesterday. It strikes me that most Canadians are very used to the idea that when there is a piece of work to be done and it is urgent they are willing to put the time in to do it.

Certainly the issue before us today in terms of the process unfolding is unusual in that this motion clearly says that rather than adjourn the House tonight at midnight we will come back here and do more work. I think we have to examine that as to whether or not this is a legitimate question and whether or not it is a reasonable thing for us to do.

Clearly now we have three parties that are in agreement with this, because the NDP will be supporting this motion, and we have one party that is adamant it will not support coming back here next week to continue working on the two bills that are before us. Yesterday I heard the Conservative House leader talk about ramming it through. I really had to think about that. What does it mean that somehow we are ramming through this legislation?

The fact is that we now have been debating this legislation, both Bill C-48 and Bill C-38, for a period of time. What we are doing here today and what we will do tonight when we vote on this motion is agree that we will continue, in our usual process, to work on these two issues.

What is this question of ramming it through? It seems to me that Canadians understand that we are elected to do a job here and that our primary responsibility is to be in this Parliament, to make it work and to get things done. I think Canadians understand that this is where we should be, in this place.

I also heard the Conservative House leader say there is a misconception that when we leave this place we all go home and go on holiday. He was sort of bemoaning the fact that this is what is being said out there. I would agree with that. I would agree with the comment he made that members of Parliament work very hard in session and when we go back to our ridings we work very hard as well.

The reality is that the Conservative Party members have had a choice. They have had a choice all along. If they are so eager to get back to their ridings, then they have had the choice to deal with this legislation before the ending of the session tonight notwithstanding this motion before us. Clearly that was their choice. They decided not to do that. They decided for their own political agenda to keep dragging this out simply because they are opposed.

I would suggest that the constituents in our local ridings understand why we are here and what we are here to do in terms of passing critical legislation. What they do not understand are the tactics, the manoeuvring and the tactical war games by the Conservative Party members, who are doing anything to stop legislation from going through.

I would agree with others in this place who have said that at some point it becomes an absurd exercise. We know where each party stands on this issue. We know that within a party there are some members who are opposed to same sex marriage, to Bill C-38. We certainly know what the position of the Conservative Party is. The public knows the position of the Conservative Party.

Surely at the end of the day we have a responsibility to be here, to do our work and to make a decision. It is not just about debating something. It is about actually making a decision based on the public interest and based on the feedback we get.

I will respect the decision of Conservative members who want to vote against Bill C-48 and of the same members who want to vote against Bill C-38. I have total respect for the fact that they have a different point of view and they want to vote against those bills. So be it. That of course is their prerogative and it is what they have decided to do. Where I take issue with that fact is that they are apparently wanting to deny the ability of Parliament to keep working to ensure that we can make a decision on these two bills.

What are these two bills about? I believe that both of these bills have to do with the quality of life. I am very proud that we are debating Bill C-48 and that we will have a decision made on Bill C-48, because Bill C-48 produces a more progressive balanced budget. It is a better budget than we saw in the beginning from the Liberal government.

I am very proud of the fact that our leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth, and members of our caucus are supporting this bill. I am proud that we have an agreement with the Liberals to enhance and strengthen that budget and to deliver concrete things to Canadians that have to do with the quality of life.

What are we talking about? We are talking about the fundamentals of affordable housing. In my riding of Vancouver East, an inner city community, and in many other ridings across this country there are more than 1.7 million households struggling to be in affordable housing. They are struggling to pay the rent. They are struggling against eviction notices. Bill C-48 will actually deliver money into affordable housing so that those units can be built. I cannot think of anything more basic and fundamental than that in terms of the ability of all Canadians to have equality and access to quality of life. It is about affordable housing. I am very proud of the fact that Bill C-48 has that element.

Then we get on to the environment and $900 million. As we have heard many times in this House, every mayor across this country is waiting for funds that will help to deal with the needs of public transit and with other infrastructure needs. This bill will deliver those funds for that priority to municipalities.

On access to education, there is $1.5 billion. This is not something that we talk a lot about in this House. We can talk to any student across this country who is struggling under a debt load of $25,000 on average, but sometimes of up to $50,000 or $60,000 in debts and loans. We can talk to any student or to a family trying to support that student and they will say this money is not enough, I will be the first one to say that, but this money is essential to ensuring that we provide accessibility to post-secondary education, that we deliver that money, work with the provinces and make sure it is there to reduce the debt load or reduce tuition for students.

Another element of Bill C-48 is our commitment as a wealthy nation to people who are living in poverty in poor nations. Even though we have poverty in this country and even though we have people who are homeless, overall we are a wealthy nation in the international community. Another element of this bill is to ensure that we deliver on our commitment as a wealthy nation to people who are living in poverty in poor nations.

Getting us closer to that goal of 0.7% for international aid and development is a very important step. We have heard criticism from the likes of Bob Geldof and others of the fact that the government has been dragging its feet on that commitment.

Here is a way to ensure that we move forward and that we actually increase Canada's capacity to provide a commitment to the goal of 0.7%. Those are all fundamental things dealing with the quality of life.

As for Bill C-38, there has been a lot of debate in this House about Bill C-38. Our caucus and I do consider it a matter of urgency, along with Bill C-48, to continue to work on that bill.

The justice committee in 2002 and 2003 held extensive hearings across this country on same sex marriage. We have had a legislative committee here in Parliament studying the bill. I understand that there are concerns about Bill C-38, but I think at a certain point there has to be a recognition and a validation that those concerns have been responded to. Bill C-38 for equal marriage does not in any way impinge upon religious freedom. We have had many characterizations of that, yet nowhere has there been real evidence that this bill will somehow destroy that freedom of expression or religious freedom.

In fact, I think the committee has gone to great lengths to ensure that there is protection for religious freedom. I know that there is an amendment likely to come back at report stage which will ensure that organizations having a charitable tax status will be guaranteed that it will continue and they will not somehow be vulnerable to it being taken away. I think the legislative committee and this House have gone to great lengths to respond to the concerns that have been put forward by the Conservative Party in its opposition to Bill C-38.

But at the end of the day I think we have to recognize that no matter what is said and no matter what is done they are unilaterally opposed to the bill. They are unilaterally opposed to extending equal marriage to gays and lesbians. I find that shameful and a completely contradictory policy or platform to hold, one that is contrary to our charter of rights in this country.

In fact, I would argue that one can be opposed to same sex marriage as an individual member of Parliament and still support the bill, because it is about providing equality. It is about providing people with choices. As I have said before, no one is forcing the leader of the Conservative Party to marry a man if he does not want to. The bill is about choice. It is about a choice that two individuals make, whether it is two men, two women or a man or a woman. If they choose to celebrate their love in a civil marriage, or in a religious marriage if they can find a religious institution to do that, that is their choice.

I do not believe that I have the right as an elected member of Parliament to deny the rights of other Canadians to make that choice. I happen to agree with the bill and with same sex marriage, but even if I did not, whether or not I agree with it personally, I do not believe that I have the right to withhold that choice from two consenting adults who want to celebrate their commitment to each other through a marriage or maybe through common law. Who am I and who is any other member here to make that decision?

I think that when we get to that fundamental premise of the bill, this is where we really part company. I can understand the concerns that have been laid out. I can understand how we have to go through that debate, how we actually have to examine what those concerns are about in terms of religious freedom and how we have to respond to those concerns, and I believe that has been done. We are now ready in this House to move on with that debate, to take it into report stage and hopefully into third reading and finally make a decision.

I find it reprehensible that the Conservative Party, for a very narrow partisan agenda, would do everything it can with all of the procedural manoeuvres and all of the concurrence motions to hold up that bill, because I think we are denying people equality.

Let me say that at the end of the day I was elected, like other members of our caucus and other members of the House, to make some tough decisions. We were elected to make some tough decisions. We were elected to work hard. We get paid well for what we do. I do respect the fact that members of Parliament work hard at what they do, but I think it is incumbent upon us and we have a responsibility to deal with the legislation, to not let it drag on and to recognize that the passage of Bill C-48 as a companion bill to Bill C-43 is a critical component of the budget.

The Conservatives can criticize it all they want. They can say that somehow the bill is on a different footing from other bills and that it talks about how the government “may” spend the money instead of “shall”. We have gone through all of that. If we want to check the record of the finance committee or what the comptroller of Canada has said about the bill, we will see that he is saying that Bill C-48 is put forward on the same basis as any other appropriations bill. It contains the same kind of language. It is basically a permissive piece of legislation that allows the various departments and ministers to go ahead and make those expenditures in the areas that are detailed.

All of that bluster, argumentation and propaganda about how the bill somehow does not mean anything, or how it is not real, is completely hollow. These are completely politicized arguments to give people the illusion that somehow this is not real. It is real. The bill exists. It is based on a financial basis within the budget bill. It is based on a balanced budget.

I am very confident that the bill will pass and that those expenditures will be made by the various departments. Thank goodness that more Canadians will be better off and have an improved quality of life because they will have better access to education and better access to affordable housing units, and we will have a sense that we are meeting our obligations in the international community.

I have no qualms whatsoever, nor does anyone in the NDP, about voting for this motion tonight for us to be here next week. Yes, I would like to go home. I have a lot of work piled up in my riding, as does, I am sure, everyone else, but our party has a commitment to Bill C-48. We have a commitment for equality for Canadians to see passage of the bill. We are prepared to be here and to work. I also think a majority of the members of the House are willing to do that, even though we know the Bloc Québécois oppose Bill C-48.

We will be supporting the motion and we will be here next week. We will do our work. I hope it does not take too long but we are prepared to be here to do that work and to move forward on both of those bills.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure for me and for all members of Parliament to listen to the points of view of the Bloc Québécois House leader. He is a very passionate speaker and he has made a very passionate case for further reform of the employment insurance program in particular.

My concern is he expressed he could never support suspending the rights of some Canadian citizens. He referred to the whole issue of Bill C-38 and the fact that in his opinion we had to extend the sitting of this Parliament to ensure that Bill C-38, the same sex marriage legislation, was passed because somehow that might affect their rights.

I would point out to the hon. Bloc Québécois House leader that first, same sex marriage is allowed already in his province of Quebec. I am sure he is aware of that. Therefore, Bill C-38 will not affect the rights of gays and lesbians in the province of Quebec. Furthermore, in all likelihood Bill C-38 will sit in the Senate for the entire summer, regardless of whether we extend the sitting of this place. What about the rights of all those Canadians who are very concerned about the religious freedom of expression in our country? Is he not concerned about suspending their rights?

One of the reasons why we want to ensure that Bill C-38 does not progress any further than report stage is because we would still have the opportunity for Canadians to express their opinion on whether the amendments to Bill C-38 would have enough protection for the freedom of religious expression in our country. They could let their opinion be known to members of Parliament over the summer. If the bill were still at report stage come fall, there would be an opportunity for all parties to express their opinion and perhaps improve or further protect religious expression. What about those rights?

Finally, I am very concerned about the precedent we have seen set here today. I would think that the Bloc Québécois House leader would be concerned about the precedent his party has set by supporting closure. What about the rights of members of Parliament to speak in the House of Commons? I think it is the first time, and he can correct me if I am wrong, that the Bloc Québécois members supported the government to bring in closure and shut off debate. What about that awful precedent of suppressing rights?

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will start by indicating to those listening that the Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of this motion to extend this sitting of the Parliament, provided of course that all stages of Bill C-38 are on the parliamentary agenda before the House adjourns.

We are engaged today in voting on an motion to extend the sitting of the House because this parliamentary session we have just been through has given rise to the worst possible abuses. In recent months there has been an incredible amount of time wasted here in this House.

For the first time in my parliamentary experience, I have seen a government boycotting its own parliamentary agenda. That happened on five separate occasions. For five days of this last session, the government itself has made use of stalling tactics to prevent this House from addressing legislative items submitted by itself. What a curious situation!

The session about to end has been improvised by the government. We would have had the time to pass many more legislative measures if there had been just a minimum of planning. We could have adopted all the legislative measures we wanted, but this very government, whether to save its own skin or out of fear that it was not in line with the thinking of the majority of members of this House, has attempted to distract us from the agenda, and that has created a precedent.

In short, despite our full cooperation, particularly in the final weeks of this session, we are obliged to extend the sitting. We will do so, because I want people to know that we were firmly resolved to support the government and to ensure that the legislative record is not too thin. We are going to accept an extension because of a major bill which the Bloc Québécois members wholeheartedly support. This is a bill to regularize the situation for parties to same sex marriage.

It is a matter of rights. I must say that we have respect for everyone who thinks differently. We understand that some people have difficulty with this reality because of their religious beliefs or certain social situations. But in this House of Commons, we have a responsibility not to let problems in society drag on but to deal with them. Even in difficult situations, we have a duty to say our piece, study the situation, analyze the arguments for and against, weigh everything, and finally draw our own conclusions.

There is a free vote on this bill and people can vote as their conscience dictates. I would remind the House, though, that refusing to pass Bill C-38 means refusing to recognize the decisions handed down by seven courts of law. They have ruled that, by virtue of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is in effect here in Canada, all citizens regardless of their sexual orientation have a right to choose and cannot be discriminated against on this basis. Seven courts have ruled in this way. Today, the House of Commons must make the Civil Marriage Act consistent with these decisions.

A refusal to pass Bill C-38 would mean that the rights and freedoms of a large number of people here in Canada would have to be suspended.

Rights and freedoms would be suspended. These people would be told, “We know the Charter gives you the right to marry but you cannot do so because we are taking away your freedoms”. Most of my colleagues in the Bloc and I do not want to be numbered among those who would suspend the rights and freedoms of a group of people in our society. There is no chance that we would do that.

That is why we not only hope but are eager to ensure that Bill C-38 passes by the end of the extended session. To this end, I asked for written guarantees from the government House leader. Not that our word is not enough, but in this case, in view of the importance of this matter, I simply had to obtain these guarantees in order to be absolutely certain that we would do our work to the end, that we were going to assume our responsibilities right to the end.

This is worth extending the session of Parliament a few days to do justice to our fellow citizens and end this debate that is pitting people in our society against one other. This debate is a matter of conscience for everyone.

I am saying it again: we respect the values, conscience and religious beliefs of all individuals. We have to draw the line somewhere. My colleagues and I will not be able, when the time comes, to suspend rights and freedoms and prevent people having access to a union to which they are currently entitled in most Canadian provinces.

That said, our requirements have been clear. This is our duty, and we will extend this sitting of the House.

There is also Bill C-48, which has a much worse image than Bill C-38. The government wants the House to consider and adopt Bill C-48 during the extended sitting. This bill is an addendum to the government's budget. There is $4.5 billion in what is being called the NDP budget. However, I think that $4.5 billion should be called the NDP's price for abandoning Canada's unemployed.

We were in the midst of negotiations. With the NDP, the Bloc and the Conservative Party combined, we were in a position to obtain a major concession for a major overhaul of EI from the Prime Minister—if he wanted to remain Prime Minister. In the Bloc's view, it was a sine qua non, an essential condition. Some $47 billion has been stolen from the unemployed in Canada over the past seven or eight years. The raiding of the fund continues more slowly, but just as blatantly, to the tune of several billion dollars per year.

These billions of dollars should be going to people who lose their jobs, people with families and who go three, four, sometimes even seven months without working. Today, as a result of successive cuts to EI, these people have been left high and dry and therefore unable to feed their families or survive as individuals.

We had the requisite condition, the sine qua non. With the NDP we had the necessary strength to force the government to yield on employment insurance. Unfortunately, the NDP members chose to attach an addendum to the budget, on housing and public transportation. Those are good things. We are not saying that this is not money well spent. However, we understand today that it cost the Prime Minister $4.5 billion to tell the unemployed in Canada that they would not get their EI reform, they would not get their due, they would not get the $47 billion and they would have to continue living in poverty, because the deal had been made with the NDP. That, the Bloc Québécois cannot accept. For these reasons we will vote against Bill C-48.

We owe this to the unemployed. The Bloc will never trade its demands on behalf of the unemployed for a mess of pottage.

We had in fact insisted on one point. We wanted at least some indication from the government that it intended to resolve the fiscal imbalance. It is costing the governments of the provinces and Quebec very dearly.

All the premiers, the ministers of finance, the political parties in the legislatures and the National Assembly in Quebec, all the parties in this House, except the Liberals, admit it. The experts, Liberal firms and academics admit it: there is a huge fiscal imbalance in Canada.

This imbalance means that the federal government occupies a tax field it does not need. When we tax more than we need, we create surpluses. When we free up a tax field, there are no more surpluses. The provinces, the Government of Quebec and the provincial governments can occupy this field and finally provide their people with the services they deserve.

We are in a difficult situation. As citizens of Quebec and Canada—this is true as well for the other provinces—we are forced to give more than half of our taxes to the federal government and a little less than half to the Government of Quebec. We require services from the Government of Quebec and some as well from the federal government, but fewer direct services such as health and education, which are two major budgetary items.

We want services from the Government of Quebec. It tells us that it cannot tax us any more because we are already taxed enough. However, we are already paying a lot of taxes because we send them to Ottawa. In the meanwhile, Ottawa accumulates surpluses, spending and injecting money into this and that. All is well. Life is beautiful. They announce a $2 billion surplus but end up with $10 billion at the end of the year, as if billions just grew on trees. They collect a billion dollars. Well, a billion dollars, those are the taxes of thousands of Canadian families. There are people who are killing themselves with work every day. They earn $7 or $8 an hour and pay a dollar a litre for gasoline. They pay a dollar for their gas to be able to drive their car to work because they are giving so much in taxes to the federal government.

A billion dollars represents the taxes, the sweat and sacrifices of thousands of people in Canada. Here, in the federal government, they think that a billion dollars is good thing. They took in eight more than they forecast. So the government says, “Well, we will put it into the debt” or, “Maybe we will use a few to buy the NDP; maybe we will invest a little bit to help with public transit; maybe we will invest in housing”.

When they are spending money that comes from the sweat of working people, who struggle day after day to support governments, they should have the decency to say, “If I am collecting too much, I will quickly withdraw from the tax field. In so doing, I will only take from people what I need for the services I provide them”.

If another government that provides health or education services needs to go after the product of the sweat and the labour of all these working people, let it. If it does not need to do so, the people will benefit from lower taxes. That is the fiscal imbalance--when the government that needs the least taxes the most, and the government that needs the most does not have enough. This is what we have under this federal system.

We are sovereignists. Our solution is totally the opposite of the one being discussed here, but for the moment it strikes us as appropriate for the government to correct this fiscal imbalance.

When people are expressing their pleasure with the few billion dollars included in Bill C-48, they need to realize that what the federal government owes them is tens of billions, not just a few billion.

It is far more than the few hundred million they would get for public transit. If fiscal imbalance were remedied for good, this would simultaneously solve the problems of the governments that have to deliver services.

Bill C-48 is rather like the biblical story of trading away one's birthright for a mess of pottage. People are lulled into security with gifts, with a bit of money here, a little subsidy there, and then nothing is done about the real problems of the unemployed. Money is handed out left and right, but nothing is done about the real problem of the fiscal imbalance, despite the fact that every politician in Canada, with the exception of the Liberal Party of Canada, acknowledges its existence.

That is the reason we will be voting against Bill C-48. We will be voting against a bill that ought to have included a complete reform of employment insurance, in order to do justice to the poorest members of our society, those who have to bear the burden of job loss.

There should have also been some steps toward beginning to resolve the fiscal imbalance, which penalizes our friends and constituents who send money to government out of their own pockets every day; thousands of dollars more than the government needs to cover the services it must offer. This is what guarantees the government such huge surpluses and allows it then to blackmail the governments of Quebec and the provinces by imposing conditions, holding discussions and giving itself more powers than its own constitution allows. And we are supposed to like this system. We should get down on our knees and thank the federal government for giving back a small portion of the taxes we paid in excess. The government is too greedy because it did not want to cut taxes and did not want to limit itself to the only tax field it needs. Such is the reality.

We will support the motion to extend the sitting, but we will fight against Bill C-48 until the end. However, we will fight in favour of Bill C-38 to settle, once and for all, the terrible debate on same sex marriage that is tearing our society apart.

We will vote in favour of extending the sitting of the House. Since we do not want to waste the time of the House or the taxpayers' money, we hope to resolve these two matters in the next few days, possibly by Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday. Then we can take a well-deserved vacation.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a bit humbling to hear such praise for my remarks yesterday, but I do appreciate it.

The member raises the relevant point, the central point of the debate yesterday and the debate that is being continued here today, about the extension of the sitting. He is quite right and I laid out yesterday, in defence of not only the members of Parliament from the Conservative Party of Canada but indeed the members of Parliament from the other three political parties, the importance of them returning to their ridings to meet their commitments.

I would suggest that probably all of us have made a commitment to our constituents to be accessible, to be present, to interact with them, and to participate in events in our constituencies. It is important in the whole democratic process that MPs make themselves accessible in their constituencies rather than always being confined here to this place.

One of the things that MPs from all parties struggle with is the constant conflict between constituency work and the work as a legislator in the House of Commons. That is compounded in the case of the whips of the political parties because it is incumbent upon them, indeed it is a big part of their job description, to ensure that members of Parliament in their particular parties are here when they are needed. They have to listen all the time when MPs are caught in that conflict between a commitment to their constituents and a commitment to their party, and their roles as legislators here in the House of Commons.

When we look at Motion No. 17, the government has now taken the extraordinary step of invoking closure today, it is shutting down debate. It is saying that this is paramount, that it is urgent. As I said yesterday, the reality is quite the opposite. There is no great urgency for the House of Commons to incur the costs associated with sitting next week, when our regular adjournment would be tonight at midnight. There is no logical reason why that has to happen, why members of Parliament from all parties have to cancel commitments they have made to their constituents for next week, fully anticipating that the House would be in recess.

As my colleague has indicated, the budget implementation act, Bill C-43, has been passed. The Conservative Party of Canada supported it on June 15. We supported it on May 19. We abstained on the original vote on a budget when the budget was introduced back in March. We took those extraordinary steps because, as I explained yesterday, this party deals with legislation based upon principle. We assess each piece of legislation on its own merits and determine our position.

Bill C-43 is now hung up at committee hearings in the Senate because the Liberals in the Senate will not allow it to proceed until they get Bill C-48 in order to live up to a political commitment between the Prime Minister of the country and the leader of the New Democratic Party. That is why it is held up there.

That is why Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia are still waiting for their money to start flowing from the Atlantic accord agreement. That is why municipalities all across this country are still waiting for the money they desperately need to improve and repair their infrastructure. The bill is held up in the Senate, not because of the Conservative senators but because Liberal senators are holding it up for ransom until they get the NDP budget and the same-sex marriage legislation forced through this chamber.

I think that is despicable and dishonest. I think that the government should rightfully be condemned and held to account by Canadians for not only doing such a thing, but for trying to blame the official opposition for what is essentially its doing in holding up this important budget legislation on the erroneous charge that somehow we need to extend the sitting in order to force through Bill C-48 and Bill C-38.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, no promises were made to any special interest groups. That is a direct response to the hon. member.

When he talks about what the government has essentially done, I can point to the early learning initiative, the new deal for cities, the investments in affordable housing and post-secondary education, the reduction in income tax for lower income Canadians and investments in the auto sector. I can point to a number of different areas, all of which the official opposition disagrees with, and it is certainly within its right to do so. It is the opposition's right to disagree with what the government is doing.

I would just go back to the point that when and if the House is able to decide on whether the motion should pass or not, we will then deal with both the budget bill, Bill C-48, and ultimately Bill C-38.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government has admitted now that Bill C-38 is its single issue. This is a single issue government. It wants to socially engineer Canada to bring it farther left than any other country in the world. We heard that in committee.

I sat on that committee and it was a sham. The committee was structured in a way that Canadians would not have an opportunity to give input. The number of witnesses who could appear was limited. The committee was stacked with only members who supported the government and they brought closure on that by manipulation. We heard from witnesses that religious freedoms in Canada would not be protected. We had amendments from all parties that the government refused. It called them out of order.

Will the government House leader not admit that there were special promises made to special interest groups? The government funded these special interest groups to come and support same sex marriage. What promises were made to these special interest groups?

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was a committee decision when to report and all parties agreed to the decision to report back on that day. The Conservative member who sat on that committee and who spoke very aggressively against this legislation agreed to report back on a certain day. It was the committee that decided when to report back the question.

With respect to the witnesses themselves, 75 witnesses have appeared with respect to Bill C-38, and there was 28 hours and 20 minutes of debate on Bill C-38.

I grant that not all members are happy with the process, and not all members are going to be happy at the end of the day with respect to the outcome. To suggest that there has not been enough debate on this issue is certainly a personal perspective and one that members are perfectly entitled to and should express on their own.

At the end of the day, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that you have a question here and a vote will be taken on whether we extend the sitting of the House. Parliament will decide that. If Parliament decides to extend the sitting, then we will deal with both Bill C-48 and Bill C-38.

[Pat O'Brien, Independent, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the government House leader tell us that there has been a very full and democratic debate on Bill C-38 but clearly the game here is to try to fast-track Bill C-38.

Does my colleague consider giving less than 24 hours' notice to witnesses to appear at a committee to be democratic and fair? I speak as a three time chair of the committee on national defence and veterans affairs. Does he consider having four witnesses at a time, meeting after meeting, to be sitting at a committee, which is unusual, to be a normal, democratic practice in this House?

Does he consider the imposition of an artificial June 14 deadline to report to this House normal and fair? I want him to answer that because if he does the Canadian people do not.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the level of debate and discussion that is going on here amazes me. The other day I was talking with my daughter who was looking after a young girl of about five or six years old. All she could say to the Conservatives was “na, na, na, na, na, na”.

It is almost as if they have not realized that they have not lost the election yet. I hear them stand up and say that the majority of Canadians are against Bill C-38 and yet poll after poll shows different statistics all the time.

If the Conservatives believe they are right, when the vote on Bill C-38 comes up they can vote against it, if that is their choosing, and then, when an election is called, they can run on that platform. If they oppose Bill C-38 and if it passes through this House, they can tell Canadians that they would use the notwithstanding clause to eliminate a minority right. They have every right to say that to the Canadian people. The Conservatives do not have the courage to say that they would use the notwithstanding clause against Bill C-38.

Those are the same bunch of Conservatives whose leader says that it is okay to make a bribe but that it is not okay do accept one. No wonder they are dropping in the polls like a lead sinker.

Could the hon. House leader tell me what the Conservatives are afraid of?

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone in the country believes the Conservatives were doing anything but filibustering both on Bill C-48 and Bill C-38 in order to avoid getting to the question. It is certainly well within their rights to use every procedural tactic available to them in the Standing Orders to prevent something from happening.

However, ultimately I think Canadians look to a resolution to a question. While Canadians look for debate, and while the hon. members may argue that there has not been enough debate, I would submit that there has been debate in the House on Bill C-38 and Bill C-48.

What I am putting in front of the House this morning is an opportunity for Parliament to decide whether Parliament itself should have extended sittings. If that happens, I am saying that we would deal with Bill C-48 and Bill C-38 and ultimately Parliament will decide the outcome of those bills.

The members opposite may disagree with what I am looking to do but ultimately Parliament will decide whether what I am doing is acceptable to Parliament.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it was not very long ago that I came to the House and almost on a daily basis the government was introducing concurrence motions to use up time and filibuster their own agenda, which was very thin soup, to say the least. There really was nothing on the agenda and there was no Bill C-38. The NDP amendment bill was not here and the government was using up time on concurrence motions.

As we approach the summer recess, when MPs should be back in their ridings with their constituents, the government says that it is very important that we extend the sitting so we can deal with issues that it could have dealt with back then but refused to do. Now it is an urgent matter and it wants an extension. I find that to be sucking and blowing at the same time.

Would the House leader explain or justify why the government was wasting so much time on concurrence motions not very long ago and now it needs more time?

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across the way should acknowledge that there was extensive debate on Bill C-38 in the House at second reading. Hearings have been conducted on Bill C-38. The justice committee held hearings back in 2002-03, although I understand a lot of members would not agree that had anything to do with Bill C-38.

I think the committee heard some 75 witnesses on Bill C-38. The Order Paper contains a number of report stage amendments that should be debated and decided upon. A number of amendments were proposed and debated in committee and some were accepted and passed.

The hon. member has indicated that a number of people in the country are opposed to Bill C-38, which is true, but it is also true that a number of people are for it. However when we have a debate, part of that debate is deciding on a question and I think people in the House have decided how they will vote. The opportunity is now to decide on the question and that is what is being asked.

If the motion passes we will go to extended sittings in order to deal with the budget bill and Bill C-38.

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

Mr. Speaker, what is happening in this Parliament is amazing. Bill C-38 is a very important bill but the fact is that the majority of Canadians across the nation have said that they do not want it and the government is trying to jam it through. The Liberals are making sure this happens.

The mandate of all members of Parliament is to listen to the people of Canada. What is happening this morning is abysmal. People in my riding of Kildonan—St. Paul do not want Bill C-38 passed. The members opposite should be listening to all people in Canada, as well as those in their own ridings.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government House leader. It may not have directly to do with the present debate. I have seen the legislative calendar for the next couple of weeks, which he has issued. There is one bill on that legislative calendar, Bill C-38.

My office is getting calls from people whose homes have been damaged by flood waters. I am getting calls from farmers whose crops are under water, from truck drivers who are losing their businesses and from feedlot operators who cannot get by. I have grain farmers who are starving to death and businesses that are closing, yet the only agenda this government has is Bill C-38.

If the government is seriously worried about doing the business of the country, then it should damn well deal with the business that is bothering this country and get to it.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the only thing I can say is that I would hope the Conservative senators along the way would show the same cooperation with respect to Bill C-48 and Bill C-38 as they seem to be showing with respect to Bill C-43.

I am under no illusions. I would expect that once Bill C-48 and Bill C-38 leave this place, with Bill C-43 already in the Senate, the Senate will do everything possible to pass all of the legislation that has gone to the Senate in order to give Canadians what they are hoping for, what this Parliament deserves, and that is additional funding for transit, additional funding for the Atlantic provinces, more money for the environment and more money for post-secondary education.

I can only say this. I hope that while the hon. member is here with catcalls he would take the time to leave this place, pick up the phone and ask his Conservative senators to cooperate on Bill C-48 and Bill C-38 as he has indicated they are prepared to cooperate on Bill C-43.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-43 has passed through this House and is in the Senate right now at the finance committee. The Conservative senators want to expedite the bill and get it through so the government can carry on with business. However, the Liberal senators have stalled the clause by clause on it. They are holding up the Bill C-43 royal assent passage, I suspect at the direction of the House leader or the Prime Minister.

I would ask the government House leader why he and his government are using Bill C-43 as a ransom to get Bill C-48 and Bill C-38 through. The Liberal senators have said that they will deal with Bill C-43 next week when Bills C-38 and C-48 have been passed. Why this sneaky, sleazy manoeuvring in the Senate, using their Liberal senators to hold up the 2005-06 Liberal budget just so they can get the others, and holding up the Atlantic accord as well? I would like the hon. government House leader to explain that.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

We have seen it on Bill C-38. We can ask the opposition House leader. When we were at second reading debate on Bill C-38, I made it very clear that every member who wanted to speak to Bill C-38 would have an opportunity to do so. I believe they did. It went through committee. We have report stage and third reading. There will be a further opportunity further speak to Bill C-38. What the official opposition looks to do is not to have debate for the sake of debate in terms of an exchange of ideas, but to use debate to ultimately delay a vote in the House.

Parliament has an opportunity today to decide whether we should have extended sittings. If we do have extended sittings it will be because this Parliament voted for it, not because the government has just done it through a majority. It is a minority Parliament and ultimately parliamentarians will decide whether or not we sit next week. That question should be put and ultimately decided on later today.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to highlight the record of this government over 12 years. Over 80 times it has shut down debate in this House. Whether it was a majority or a minority Parliament, it did not matter. The government did not want to hear the voices of Canadians through duly elected opposition members of Parliament.

There are millions of Canadians out there who voted for Conservative members of Parliament like me and who expect us to fight bills like Bill C-38 right to the bitter end, yet the government wants to limit the voice of Canadians through us as duly elected members of Parliament. Why? Why does it want to shut down the voices of Canadians who voted for members of Parliament on this side of the House who oppose their legislation?

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on extending this Parliament, we are in fact asking this House to consider a motion to extend the sitting of this Parliament. Ultimately, as I said, it will be up to this House to do exactly that.

With respect to why we are doing that, it would be clear that Bill C-48 is of importance to many different parts of the country. There are premiers and mayors who are involved in budget making who want to know that this legislation will in fact move forward.

If the hon. members across the way want to voice their concern and their opposition to Bill C-48, they have certainly done so and we can hear from the comments that they will continue to do so. It does authorize $4.5 billion in spending this year and next. It does advocate and provide dollars for the homeless, for students, for cities and for the environment. They are perfectly within their right to stand in their place to debate against it, as they have, and to ultimately decide on the question. What we are doing is providing the House with an opportunity to do exactly that.

With respect to Bill C-38, I could go on in terms of the amount of debate that has taken place, but I will not because I think it is very public and I do know that members have decided how they will vote in any one way.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we know what is happening over there. Canadians know what is happening over there. The government wants this extension brought in just because it does not want to extend Bill C-38 into the fall. The government knows that will be getting close to elections and the government does not represent the views of the majority of Canadians on Bill C-38.

The government wants to keep that distance from the time it discusses Bill C-38. It wants to ram it through this Parliament as far away from the elections as possible. That is the real reason the government wants Bill C-38 to come here: so that Canadians will forget about it during the summer. Is that not the real reason the government wants to extend this Parliament?

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member takes on the same attitude when we have the outcome of the vote on whether this motion should pass or fail. If we are going to have a test of democracy then in fact what should happen is that our parliamentarians in this House should be able to deal with the question and should be able to vote, and Parliament should ultimately be able to decide.

With respect to whether there has been debate or not, with respect to Bill C-38 there have been 28 hours and 20 minutes of debate. With respect to Bill C-48, I think we have seen over the last number of days that the only the party that has been putting up speakers has been the official opposition.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this is what I would call a travesty of democracy. This has been my first term and we are coming to something so significant as to whether or not there is a basis to extend this Parliament. To limit debate on whether that motion should come to the floor on a basis like that is very fundamental, and to try to stop debate on that issue is remarkable, to say the least.

Mr. Speaker, you could only have a further sitting of this House if it were a matter of public interest. Public interest would demand something fairly significant and it would not be Bill C-38, because certainly the nation does not want that bill to pass. The government, under the pretense of trying to make it of public interest, has linked it to Bill C-48, when it had every opportunity to deal with that in this session. There is nothing in Bill C-48 that requires it to be dealt with at this time or requires this sitting of the House to be extended. There is absolutely nothing.

It is the arrogance of this government to try to ram through this House what the public does not want, what is not in the national interest and which has no public interest to it. I ask why the House leader, under these circumstances, would try to limit debate in a democracy that is free, in a democracy where opinion--

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that what I am doing is ensuring that Parliament has an opportunity to entertain questions and to make a decision on two pieces of legislation.

The second point I would make is that it would be ultimately up to this Parliament to decide whether to accept this motion. We are in a minority Parliament. It is not the government that will alone be able to see the success of this motion, so it will be up to parliamentarians in the House to decide whether the extension of this sitting in order to deal with both the budget bill and Bill C-38 is in fact required and whether parliamentarians are willing to do that.

I would say to the hon. member that he should respect as I do, and I am sure he does, the outcome of any vote in this Parliament and that he will adhere to what Parliament decides, because ultimately we are here for debate. Debate is intended to try to change or assert at the end of the day where people's minds actually are on a particular issue and to decide on a question. That is the point of this: to decide on the question.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question will not take a minute. It is pretty straightforward. I would ask the government House leader how he defends using closure to ram through his agenda in the dying days of this session, to extend the session for two pieces of legislation that ultimately will not come into effect for quite some time.

Bill C-48, as I explained at length yesterday, will not effectively be in force for at least a year until we see what level of so-called Liberal surplus we have, which, as I explained, Conservatives believe to be overtaxation.

Bill C-38 will ultimately be sitting in the Senate all summer. Why would the government force closure to ram through these two pieces of legislation when it is not going to make any consequential difference?

An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's question. I realize I did make a statement during my presentation which was inaccurate. It is very confusing when there are two or three budgets. One kind of forgets which is which.

The member asked how it was that voting for Bill C-43 would be voting for Bill C-38. I meant to say, and it was an error on my part, that voting for Bill C-48, which the Liberal members across the floor did at second reading, is like voting for Bill C-38. That is what I meant to say. It is not that complicated for the member to figure out.

If any one of them had voted against Bill C-48 at second reading, Bill C-38 would have been killed. We would have been in an election and we would have a Conservative government, which would mean the end of the same sex marriage bill. That is what I meant to say. If I was not clear on that or if I made an error, I appreciate the opportunity to correct it.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I found it difficult to follow the very circular argumentation of the member and his colleague, the member for Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam who said, “Wait, it will make sense eventually”.

Unfortunately, I waited until the end and it never made sense. It never made sense that the hon. member was questioning his colleagues when he said that voting for Bill C-43 was akin to voting for Bill C-38, which means that not only was he condemning Liberal members of the House but he was also condemning his own colleagues who voted for Bill C-43. However I should say that at least that time they voted because in a previous manifestation of the very same bill, with the $4.6 billion in tax cuts, Conservative members cashed their pay cheques, did not show up for work and did not bother to vote.

Despite all those circular arguments, what I found most surprising about the member's presentation was when he talked about children. We know that 1.1 million children are living in poverty and that housing programs need to address that but he ignores that. It is in Bill C-48 and I hope he will read the bill.

We know there is a crisis in post-secondary education and training. The NDP's better balanced bill deals with that in investing more money in education and lowering tuition fees.

We have invested in the environment. It is our children in communities across the country who will benefit from the additional moneys put into the environment to make a better environment. That is the NDP's better balanced budget bill.

What about the families of workers, let alone children internationally? We know we need to put money into international development to support those children living in poverty around the world.

I guess it is not surprising because when we see the Conservative Party's past, we have seen bloated deficits. Last year it had the most expensive political platform in Canadian history, $86 billion, and that was even before they included the HMCS Mulroney, the aircraft carrier, for which we were never given a budget estimate.

Given the member's circular arguments, I would like to understand his opinion on his leader's statement this week that it is okay to bribe or to offer bribes but that it is not okay to accept them. How does that member square that circle that it is okay to offer bribes but not okay to accept them?

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of applause from across the floor. I understand that. Those members that I have mentioned and others over there, the so-called 30 that are standing up for their constituents on Bill C-38, want me to get off that topic, so I will get back to Bill C-48.

I want to talk about what this $4.5 billion means particularly to the young people and the older people in our society. They are the people who are hurt the most by high taxes.

The people who are hurt the most by high taxes are the young people who are just starting families. They are paying off their student loans. They have a mortgage. They have a lot of payments. They are trying to buy a car. They are trying to get in a position where they can start a family.

My wife Linda and I have five children in that position right now. I am not saying this just on behalf of my children. It is their friends. It is anyone who has children. It is people who are just starting out and getting to a point where they can start a family.

It used to be that one family member earning wages could probably support the family, and the other could stay at home with the children. Families could afford to do that. Why is it now that two people in the family, both the husband and wife must work to make enough money? The reason is taxes are so out of control in this country. They cannot afford to have one person stay at home because of all the money that is taken off their paycheques.

I think we all agree that a certain amount of money taken in taxation is reasonable. We all agree that we want to support the important social programs across the country.

I would say that many of us here, even on the other side of the House, recognize that we are simply taking too much from people and leaving them with too little to spend on what they want to spend it on. That is why those young families are having such a difficult time buying a house, making their mortgage payments, buying a car, paying off their student loans and trying to get ahead. That is why it is so difficult. More than anything else it is simply because too much money is taken off their paycheques.

I want to talk about the other group, the older folks. These folks often are retired and on a fixed income which usually is not very high. Chances are that a retired person who earns $15,000 a year pays taxes. The government takes money from an older person's paycheque even if that person only earns $15,000 a year. There is something very wrong with that picture.

As a result, many old folks come to my office. I do not think any hon. members can say they do not have people who come to their offices to say that they just cannot make ends meet. Their heating and electricity bills have gone up. Their property taxes have gone up a little bit, although nothing compared to the federal tax deduction. The gasoline prices have risen. Many of these people want to remain independent, to be mobile and to be able to drive, but gasoline prices and insurance costs have gone up. All these things have gone up.

I see I only have a minute left. I wanted to say a lot more, but I will save it for the next time I speak to Bill C-48. It has a way to go yet.

Surely the people across the floor care enough about these old retired folks to back off a little bit on taxes. To do that, the Liberals have to stop spending like drunken sailors. There was an increase in spending of more than 10% this year. They have to stop doing that if they are to leave enough money in the hands of young people who are trying to start families and in the pockets of our old folks who are just trying to get by. All they want is to have reasonable retirement years. They cannot do that any more because the government over the last 12 years has increased taxes at such a rate that it is simply out of control.

I implore members opposite to listen, to cut back on spending, to cut back on taxes and to let us spend more of our own money. We will be better off for it.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, you know they are well tied together.

It is not only the member for Mississauga South who should be ashamed of himself. It is also the member for Huron—Bruce and there are many others over there who claim they want to defeat Bill C-38. There is no free vote on Bill C-38. The cabinet has been ordered to vote in favour of it. Those members know the only way to kill Bill C-38 was to vote against Bill C-43, which was a tied vote. Mr. Speaker, you yourself had to stand to break the tie to pass that bill.

If any one of them had had the strength and the gumption to stand up and really support their constituents against Bill C-38 and to throw away the same sex marriage bill, if any one of them had had the guts to do that, they could have done it. They chose not to. But they have one more chance. When we vote on another confidence bill, Bill C-48, they will have one last chance to kill Bill C-38, the same sex marriage bill. If they do not do it, their constituents will know without a doubt that they are not sincere in any way about standing up for their constituents on Bill C-38, the same sex marriage bill.

I wanted to mention that. It is important that their constituents know that. Those members are not willing to take a stand.

I will get back to Bill C-48.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the budget implementation bill is important, as is Bill C-48. The member is now talking about Bill C-38. I would suggest that on the basis of relevance he should get back to the BIll C-48.

By the way, I did vote against Bill C-38.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I feel it is my duty to speak to Bill C-48, the NDP budget bill tonight. It is not something that I am happy to do or delighted to be speaking on, but I have an obligation to my constituents and to the country to do that.

Picture this scenario at the no-tell motel in Toronto. In the no-tell motel there is the Prime Minister of Canada, Buzz Hargrove, the big union leader, and the leader of the New Democratic Party together in bed. The Liberal finance minister from Regina was not allowed to be there. The Prime Minister pushed him off into a side suite, and closed the door, like a little boy who is not allowed to see what is going on in the room where the action is. These three individuals decided that they were going to cook up a secret, backroom deal and that is what they did.

Think about these three individuals. What is the Prime Minister's big agenda? The Prime Minister's main agenda is to put in place same sex marriage, legalize prostitution and legalize marijuana. This is the same Prime Minister who believes that government can spend billions of dollars to look after our kids better than we can.

Then there is Buzz Hargrove, the big union leader. We know about him and I will not say anything more about him. Then there is the leader of the New Democratic Party, apparently the new finance minister from what I can tell, who is certainly one of the main authors of Bill C-48. What is his agenda? His agenda is to put in place same sex marriage, legalize prostitution and legalize marijuana. He fully supports spending billions of dollars, so that government can look after our kids better than we can.

Picture the three of them in bed in the no-tell motel cooking up this deal. This is not a sleazy joint. I will give ten to one odds that this hotel room was paid for by the taxpayers. But this deal is not a private business deal. This is a deal that involves $4.5 billion of taxpayers' money. This is money that belongs to our children, our parents, our grandparents and young people striving to move ahead a little bit. That is $4.5 billion of hard earned tax money they are playing this game with, whatever the game is, and I do not even want to think about it. It is scary.

They brought this deal back to Ottawa, but not under the normal budget process. We all know that with Bill C-43, the real budget, there was a process. It was not perfect but there was some consultation. There was input from the opposition parties with Bill C-43, which was actually put in place by the former finance minister from Regina. They tabled the budget in the House of Commons and the members are asking how we voted on it.

In fact, we were not satisfied with Bill C-43, but the Conservative Party took a responsible position. We said that we do not like the deal, but we are not willing to bring down the government on the deal. The people elected us as the official opposition in a minority Liberal government and we were going to work together as much as we could. We abstained from voting on Bill C-43 the first time because we did not want to support that budget.

I have been in the House for almost 12 years now and whenever we support any initiative of the government, even if that support is not wholehearted but we think there is more good in there than that which is not good, the Liberals throw it back in our faces. We do not want to support a deal until we think it is something we will not be embarrassed about in the future. That is why we abstained on second reading of Bill C-43.

Then our great finance critic from Medicine Hat, Alberta, worked with his colleagues at committee and brought forward major amendments to Bill C-43, the budget bill. That is the budget bill that was put together by the former finance minister, the member for Wascana. He has been replaced now by the leader of the New Democratic Party, who apparently now is the new finance minister because he was the one who was in bed with the Prime Minister and Buzz Hargrove and cooked up this secret deal involving not their own money but $4.5 billion of taxpayers' money. That is the way it happened.

Once Bill C-43 had been amended so it was appropriate, what did we do as a responsible political party in a minority government? We supported it. We supported it at third reading and that budget bill has passed. There were things in that bill that we wholeheartedly supported like the Atlantic accord. In fact, that was our initiative from the start, so of course we supported that. It was our deal.

There are other things too. There was some talk of tax cuts, not a great deal, something like $16 per Canadian taxpayer per year. It was pretty pathetic but at least it was a move in the right direction, unlike the deal in the 2000 budget, the $100 billion tax reduction. I encourage everyone at home to take their paycheques from 1999 and look at the deductions from payroll, then take their paycheques from 2004 and look at the deductions from payroll.

I encourage all Canadians to tell me what my constituents already have, and that is that there has been no tax reduction. The deductions from their paycheques are at least as big now as they were before the Prime Minister supposedly cut $100 billion in taxes. Those kinds of tax cuts nobody needs.

On the one hand they may cut, but they take it with the other hand. In fact, through all of this, and the wonderful government that the members from the Liberal Party are talking about which is not a wonderful government but that is what they claim, we find that Canadians are no better off than they were 12 years ago. They are no better off than they were in 1993 when the government took office. The standard of living for Canadians has not improved one bit through all of these economic times.

That leads me to an issue that the Liberals talk about often. They say they are running a surplus. Are they not great? They say they are handling Canadian taxpayers' money wonderfully because they are running surpluses every year. Let us talk about those surpluses. What does that really mean?

It certainly means they are running a balanced budget, so from that point of view it is better than running deficits, but is that really a good thing? Does running surpluses every year mean things are good for Canadians? No, in fact, the standard of living has not increased in 12 years.

It is great for the federal government because it is taking so much in taxes and increasing spending at such a rapid rate that in spite of the increased tax take every year, Canadians are no better off, yet more money is coming from the pockets of Canadians taxpayers and going into the federal government than ever before, by a long shot. That is good for the federal government, and it can say it is running surpluses, but it is bad for taxpayers.

A surplus really is overtaxation. The government increased spending by more than 10% in Bill C-43, a budget bill which we did not happily support but there was enough good in it that we thought we should. That was before the leader of the NDP, along with the Prime Minister and Buzz Hargrove, cooked up this secret deal behind closed doors in a no-tell motel. They added $4.5 billion to their spending and those are hard-earned tax dollars.

I want to talk about what that really means, but before I do I want to talk about one more thing. The leader of the New Democratic Party and the leader of the Liberals support things like legalizing marijuana and prostitution, and putting in place same sex marriage. They cooked up this deal and I want to talk a bit more about that.

The government has said that it wants to pass two pieces of legislation before the summer break. One is Bill C-48, this NDP budget bill. The other is Bill C-38, the same sex marriage bill.

About 70% of Canadians do not support the same sex marriage bill. There are also many Liberal members who do not support the bill. The member for Mississauga South claims he is going to fight for his constituents and Canadians against same sex marriage. The member for Pickering--Scarborough East claims he is going to fight on behalf of his constituents and Canadians against same sex marriage. The member for Scarborough--Guildwood claims he is going to fight hard for his constituents against Bill C-38. Those members had a real opportunity, maybe two, the second being the vote on Bill C-48, the NDP budget bill. That is definitely a confidence vote.

Those members had two chances to kill Bill C-38. The first was on Bill C-43, the budget bill. Did they take a stand and vote for their constituents against same sex marriage by defeating that bill? No, they did not. Those members should be ashamed of that. They put on a big front. They claimed they were going to fight it on behalf of their constituents.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member made some comments regarding this side of the House, the Conservative Party. He was baffled as to why we would not be supporting Bill C-48. The message is, and I thought that he would have heard this loud and clear, Liberals cannot buy a Conservative.

He also asked about the Bloc. That government did try to buy Quebec, but it got caught with the sponsorship scandal. It could not buy Quebec. However, the government was able to buy one party, and that is the unholy alliance about which he talked.

I believe he also said that the House would fail if it did not have a plan that was responsible. He is exactly right, the House will fail if there is a plan that is not responsible. This plan is not responsible.

He has also heard loud and clear that we were not just talking about Bill C-48. We also are talking about Bill C-38.

We have heard loud and clear from the Prime Minister that this is a package plan. He does not want to wait until the fall. He wants a package deal. He wants Bill C-48 and Bill C-38 to pass together. He knows he will be able to get Bill C-38 through. The plan of the Prime Minister is social re-engineering. He wants to destroy traditional marriage. He wants to bring in legalized marijuana. He wants to legalize prostitution. He wants to make Canada the country that is more to the left than any other country in this world. The only way he can do that is with this package deal.

How can the member defend a plan, Bill C-48, that is no plan? He knows there is no plan for the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister on how they are to spend the money. He is going to give the Prime Minister complete discretion to spend the money any way he wants.

We know from experts in criminology and psychology the way to predict behaviour is to look at past behaviour. That is how we know.

An article in today's Ottawa Citizen states:

A Liberal-dominated Senate committee says the [Prime Minister's] government has failed to keep its promises to clean up the environment and regulate polluting industries.

The environment is part of Bill C-48.

It goes on to criticize the government “for dragging its feet“, and we have heard that before, “on fixing polluted water, air and soil, disappearing species” and it goes on.

Again, we can predict what will happen with the government by its past record, and its past record has been dismal. It has been broken promises.

How in all conscience can he go to his constituents and say that he is propping up and supporting a government riddled with corruption and under investigation? How can he say to them that he knows it will be destroying marriage as they know it but he will support the government?

I would like that member to tell this House and his constituents how in good conscience he can support a government like that.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

1989 was one of the best years in a very long time.

If we have a $500 billion debt and exceptional economic performance, why would we not pay down some of the debt when times are good? If we choose not to pay down some of the national debt when times are good, what realistic opportunity do we think there would be to pay down debt when times are not good? It is unbelievable. The debt to GDP ratio was 40% some odd and peaked at 68%. It is now down to 38%.

If we get our fiscal house in order, it means a lot of things can happen. The fiscal dividends, the savings on interest because we have paid down debt, is an important annual annuity which provides the cash flow necessary to fund programs.

Let me recap. We have a budget that was introduced in Bill C-43. It passed in this place with the support of the Conservatives. They had absolutely no objections to any of the four key items. They never spoke once about why we should not agree to those four items or why they were inappropriate. They also never talked about the cost being too much. The knew the incremental cost was just 1% of spending.

What was the real issue? The real issue for the Conservatives was not the content, substance and cost in Bill C-43. They wanted the government to fall. They wanted to force an election. That is the only reason we have been doing this. It could not be any other way. Why would they vote for and pass Bill C-43, the main budget, and defeat a minor item to throw us into an election, which effectively wipes out the main budget anyway? It makes no sense.

In the meantime what happened was the reality of what Canadians wanted from us was becoming clear. It was becoming clear that Canadians wanted us to work hard, to do everything possible to make the minority government work because they did not want an election. That is the difference.

Now there are other situations. There are other dynamics going on, but we have to listen to Canadians. Notwithstanding anything that has gone on so far, we have some important work yet to do, whether it on Bill C-38, the civil marriage act or other bills. We have child pornography legislation coming up.

We have a very important bill coming out of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates on whistleblower legislation, Bill C-11, which will offer more tools within the civil service to provide greater accountability and transparency in the way it operates. It is an extremely important bill.

We had the bill in the last Parliament. We finally brought it back and we were given the opportunity to shape it. There is a great deal of work. There must be at least another 20 bills that are in various stages of the legislative process which have important contributions, admittedly, by all members of Parliament. Good work has been done.

To force the government into an election at this time is not only to rebuke Canadians with regard to whether they want an election, but also it says to Parliament that they do not care about all the work that has been in the process. It was done for naught and let us come back some other day.

The Liberal government decided to listen to Canadians, to come up with a responsible budget, to collaborate and co-operate with other parties who were prepared to work together to make the minority Parliament work.

We are continuing on that track. The government will continue to work. Bill C-48 will pass. We will show Canadians that despite the efforts of the Conservative Party this will be one very successful government.

Extended Sitting Period

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

My hon. colleague from Peace River says “And in conclusion”.

Members of Parliament from all parties just wait with great anticipation to be given the leader's position on legislation where one can speak for unlimited time. I hate to disappoint my colleague who I respect and a great friend of mine from Peace River, but it is not in conclusion, at least not yet.

In anticipation of this debate today, I did come up with a list of a few reasons. I think the list could be much more extensive and perhaps we can expand upon it as we go along. There are at least a few reasons why the House of Commons should not sit beyond the scheduled adjournment date of tomorrow midnight.

The first reason would be that if it were to sit longer, it would provide more opportunities for the Liberals to cook up more corrupt deals.

Second, we could have more NDP-Liberal coalition out of control spending budget bills. If they came up with one in one night in a Toronto hotel room, imagine if we expand and extend this sitting of the House of Commons for a week or two what they could do. If they had a weekend together, it is completely unimaginable what might happen.

Third, the House might pass the current NDP-Liberal coalition bill, Bill C-48, a bill which represents a ridiculous approach to budget policy, a plan cooked up, as I have said, in a hotel room among Buzz Hargrove, the Leader of the NDP and the Prime Minister and which proposes to spend some $4.6 billion of taxpayer money in the course of just two pages of legislation.

I will not hold the bill up again. I would not want the government whip to break a leg rushing back into the House to condemn me for using a prop.

Fourth, the House might pass Bill C-38 without properly ensuring that religious freedom is protected. I spoke at some length about that a moment ago.

Fifth, we might have to put up with the Prime Minister being mad as hell about the latest reasons the public should be mad as hell about him.

Sixth, we will have to pay to fly the Prime Minister and his cabinet back and forth in Challenger jets just to vote. Imagine that. If there is ever a reason not to extend the House any longer, that would have to be one, that they will use any excuse to jump in their Challenger jets and fly across the country.

Seventh, every time we vote, there is a potential that the government will try to buy votes, costing us even more money. Do I dare start to expand upon that one point? It was about a quarter of a billion dollars that it cost to secure each of the 19 NDP votes in the House of Commons; $4.6 billion divided by 19. That is unbelievable.

I always like to stop and ensure that Canadians clearly understand when we talk about billions of dollars. It is so easy as politicians to talk about a billion here, a billion there, $4.6 billion. A billion dollars is a thousand million dollars. I would dare say that there is a very small percentage of Canadians who would ever even have the net worth of a million dollars, although there are a few.

In any event, I digress once more. I will get back to the subject of buying votes.

When the Liberals were successful in attracting one of my Conservative Party of Canada colleagues to cross the floor to instantly take a cabinet position, I was asked how I would describe that. I said this. We had known for quite some time that the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister in particular, was reaching out to opposition members in anticipation of a confidence vote that his government might lose. He was trying to attract one or more members to cross the floor. I do not think he really cared which one it was. Obviously he was successful in finding the weakest link.

That is what it is with a political party. A political party is bound by a chain of principles, ideas, trust, but it is only as strong, just as a family is, as its weakest link. That is why a lot of my colleagues took that very personally. It is a personal thing when one feels betrayed by a colleague.

At some point we have to address that situation. I have never been able to understand how someone can go to bed as a Conservative and wake up as a Liberal, or any other party affiliation for that matter. It amazes me how that can happen. The reality is it was done strictly to ensure the survival of the government, and it worked.

We will always remember the May 19 vote. A budget vote was held which resulted in a virtual tie in the chamber which was broken by the Speaker. This allowed the government to survive for another day. This happened only because of a deal concocted in a hotel room in the dead of night between the NDP and the Liberals to get 19 votes and a deal offered to a Conservative member to cross the floor to become a cabinet minister. That is the only reason the government survived, and those members know that.

That was not bad enough. To add insult to injury I was asked by the media what I thought of the new cabinet minister being given not only the responsibility for human resources development, but also being given responsibility for democratic renewal. It was so difficult for me to even be civil. It was unbelievable.

That type of action reinforces the cynicism that all of us experience not just as members of Parliament but any politician at any level who is involved in party politics. In most cases municipal politicians could be taken out of that because they run as individuals. Whether it is at the provincial level or the federal level, that type of action reinforces the cynicism which affects all politicians of all political stripes.

Voters do not understand then what they are voting for. There are a few people, and they are precious few, who actually run as independents either at the provincial or federal level of governments in our country and win as independents. We get elected to represent our people in this place for three reasons. One is because of our party affiliation. The second is because of the leader. The third is because of who we are.

Again, those members, regardless of political stripe or what party they run for, become so puffed up with their own sense of self-importance that they start to believe they are elected just because of who they are. I have always challenged those people to run as independents. Then they will know why they got elected.

For the vast majority of us in our system of government, we are elected because we belong to a political party. Our political party has a certain platform on which we run in an election campaign. We have principles, some parties arguably more than others, and we have policies on which we run and people elect us on them.

Why is it that we can think for a moment that if suddenly we become a member of a different political party, that is acceptable to our constituents? I have a great problem with that.

How could the Prime Minister of the country, who has said repeatedly that he wants to address what he has referred to as a democratic deficit, take an individual like that over all his colleagues, his caucus, his members of Parliament, and elevate that person as the Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal when, by her very actions, she has just reinforced the cynicism, the distrust with which all Canadians struggle when asked about politics and politicians? I would argue it hurts the Liberals, the New Democrats and the Bloc. It hurts all of us when that cynicism, that distrust is reinforced.

All of us have spoken many times in this place and elsewhere about the need to address that distrust and to try to restore the link that must exist between members of Parliament and constituents, Canadians out in the real world. One of the reasons I left the farm to get involved in politics was my fundamental belief that taxpayer money should be treated like a sacred trust. That is why I am so vehemently opposed to not only Bill C-48, but the process that was used to bring it about and how it was a slap in the face to everybody, every organization, every corporation and every Canadian who participated in the prebudget consultations.

As many of my colleagues have said much more eloquently than I, if this were so urgent, if this were such a good idea, if all of these things that Bill C-48 is supposedly to address were so urgent, why was it not in the original budget? However, it was not. No one is fooled by the fact that it was not in the original budget because it was not time then to buy votes. It is about power for the sake of power. It is about staying in power when that trust is not deserved.

That is why I believe the New Democratic party and its members made a very bad choice to prop up a corrupt government. In the end, it will come back to haunt them. It is not about taking a principled stand on one piece of legislation, which is how the NDP members are trying to paint this. They say that Bill C-48 is their deal, their budget. They applaud every time we call it the NDP budget. It is not about securing the passage of one piece of legislation, it is about making a commitment to a corrupt government to ensure it stays in power. That is the reality of it.

There were three reasons why I became involved in politics. I have spoken about the first one at some length. It was the financial situation, the fiscal importance of our country. At the time I first became involved in politics I had three young children. My children are now aged 22, 24 and 26. They are young adults who are struggling to pay their bills and make their way in the world. Two of them are trying to pay off student loans while struggling under a horrendous tax burden and soon the third will be. That is what my children are facing and that is what many families are facing.

I got involved because I believed we could do better. I believed that our country could do better. I still believe that. I still believe that Canada can be restored to its rightful place as the best country in the world. That is why I continue to struggle every day in this place and in my riding.

I said there were three reasons that primarily motivated me to get into politics. The second was the need for democratic reform. That is why I took it extremely personally, as did many of my colleagues, when we saw the government succeed in luring one of ours away in order to stay in power, just for the sake of staying in power for another day, a week, a year or however long it is.

I honestly do not know how some of the Liberal members of the caucus could witness that and remain in their caucus. I do not understand that. In the 12 years I have been here I have been fortunate enough to get to know many of them. Although we disagree vehemently and strongly on issues of policy and the positions we take on different issues that come before this place, I have a lot of respect for members from all parties.

I believe very strongly that for the vast majority of members of Parliament, regardless of party affiliation, regardless of whether they believe in separation or that government knows best, regardless of what they believe, the vast majority of Canadians who seek public office do it for the right reasons.

That is why I have a real problem trying to understand those Liberal backbenchers who have struggled and toiled for so many years and who have done a reasonably good job--and I will say reasonably because it depends on the individual--of representing their constituents. I would say that by and large their constituents must think so because many of them have been re-elected, just as I have. I have a real problem understanding how they could sit there and watch as the Prime Minister, like the prime minister before him, gets members of Parliament from another party to join the Liberal Party and elevates them to the cabinet. The public works minister is a good example.

They sit there and they applaud that effort. How can they not ask themselves why they put in all the years of public service to be overlooked just like that because the Prime Minister suddenly decided he needed one more member in order to survive?

That brings me to the third reason, but before I finish with democratic reform I want to say a couple of things. One point is on the whole issue of free votes. As I said, one of the reasons I was attracted to politics was that I believed members of Parliament all too often did not represent their constituents on important fundamental issues.

We have one of those issues before Parliament now. In fact, it is one of the two bills that the government says it wants to extend the sitting in order to get passed, Bill C-38. It is a fundamental issue that many Canadians feel very strongly about, on both sides, and we recognize that.

I do not understand how a Prime Minister who says he want to address the democratic deficit will not allow his cabinet members the freedom to represent their constituents on this issue. How can the government say it is going to have a free vote on something like this when it is free only for the backbenchers, not for the cabinet?

We are not talking here about a piece of government legislation such as Bill C-48. Everyone can understand a budget vote, even on such a pathetic budget that is two pages long and spends almost $5 billion of taxpayers' money. But we can understand why, if a government says it believes in this, it has to have its cabinet support it. We may not agree with that, but at least we can understand it. I think all cabinet ministers would understand that if they want to remain in cabinet they are required to vote for those types of things.

Bill C-38 is a different issue. It is an issue of moral conscience. It is an issue that many of us struggle with. It is an issue on which our party has said we will have a complete free vote for all our members. I am not even concerned about this in that sense, because fundamentally I am a democrat. I believe in democracy. It is why I became involved in politics.

I think there are three in our caucus who are going to vote for Bill C-38, but how my colleagues vote is not even an issue for me. How I vote on something like that is an issue for me. Even as my leader's House leader, I want to have him give me the freedom to represent my constituents or my own moral compass on a bill like that. I do not understand how it can be that the government will not give its cabinet that freedom--

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

I do like it. I just do not see the urgency for any of it.

My hon. colleague from the NDP said that he thought I would like that. Of course I like it. Anything that would bring any degree of financial credibility to the government and to its spending habits would be a good thing. I think it is great that the Liberals cannot spend themselves into deficit, although I wonder whether that is exactly the route we are headed for now, despite their pleas to the contrary.

Here we sit today and Bill C-43 sits in the Senate while the government holds us to ransom and tries to blame it on the Conservatives. Conservative senators are ready to expeditiously pass the bill so the money can start flowing to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador for the Atlantic accord and to municipalities all across the country for badly needed improvements to infrastructure, but it just sits there because the government wants to, as I have said, hold us to ransom until it gets this piece of legislation through.

Why it wants to is completely beyond me, when the bill will not come into effect until we know what the financial situation of the country is almost a year from now. The fiscal or financial year end for our country is March 31. Until we get to next April fool's day, we will not know whether there is enough money to spend on these so-called priorities, so what is the urgency?

Why would Bill C-48 be the urgent legislation that the government House leader states it is? Here is what he has said about Motion No. 17. If it fails, if we vote it down, if there are sufficient members of Parliament in the chamber who say it is not urgent enough to extend the sitting into July, with the accompanying costs--and why would it be?--he has actually said that he will go to the Speaker and request that Parliament reconvene after its adjournment. Let us just think about that.

There is a mechanism in our democracy whereby, if it is necessary, a government can recall Parliament in times of great peril when the House is in a recess period. Every Canadian would support this, because we do not have a crystal ball with which to look into the future.

We do not know what would happen if suddenly we were in a situation where some country declared war on us or if there were some horrendous natural disaster, like an earthquake or something, that required the urgent and timely intervention of Parliament. All sorts of crises might occur and they might not be so accommodating as to occur when the House is in session, so, of course, we need to have that mechanism in place. No one disputes that.

However to have a government demonstrate the arrogance that this legislation, along with Bill C-38, the same sex marriage legislation, are of such urgency that it would go to the Speaker and request that he recall Parliament to deal with it, is nothing short of unbelievable. I have never heard of such a thing.

If this unfolds, think about the precedent this sets. I would suggest that there is then no need to even worry about having a calendar whereby members of Parliament of all four parties can try to plan their lives, their commitments to their constituents and the events in their ridings.

As I said at the outset of my remarks, I know there are many members in all four parties who have important events planned in their ridings that allow their constituents personal access to their member of Parliament.

All too often we become so taken up with events in this place that it is all too easy to forget about how important that personal interaction with our constituents is. There are a few people who forget that at their peril and they will be reminded at the time of the next election. All of us have seen that happen.

I cannot and would not want to downplay how important this upcoming recess is for members of Parliament to be able to interact with their constituents.

While I am on the subject of this urgent nature, I just want to briefly refer to Bill C-38, the other piece of legislation that the government says is of such urgency that it has to get it through before we recess for the summer.

One of my colleagues makes a good point. Why did the Liberals not bring it through earlier if they wanted it? Why was it that in the entire month of May, the only day that we had for an opposition supply day was the last day of May. However in order to fulfill the requirement for the supply period, the government was forced to do exactly what I said it would be forced to do when it started down that road in late April, which was have all of the remaining six opposition supply days in early June. It took up a lot of time in the chamber but the government had to give those days to us finally, otherwise it could not have gotten its supply, which is its funding for the upcoming year. It had to complete that.

Now we are in a situation where the Liberals have determined that these two pieces of legislation are urgent: Bill C-48 and Bill C-38. I have already addressed the so-called budget companion bill, Bill C-48, so I will now turn to Bill C-38.

The reality is that we on this side believe that Canadians have some very deep reservations about enacting into law for the entire country same sex marriage. We believe the majority of Canadians have some very serious reservations about a government that is proceeding down that road. Many of these reservations came out in the debate that took place in the special legislative committee that was struck to deal with the legislation following second reading in the House.

The committee, however, certainly did not do the job that my colleagues, led by the member for Provencher who I know tried to ensure that the committee would travel to give Canadians better access. I spoke earlier about access to members of Parliament. He wanted to ensure that Canadians had access to discuss that face to face with the committee.

The Prime Minister promised at one point that the committee would ensure that Canadians did have that access and yet they did not. For my colleagues, the four Conservative members of Parliament who sat on that special legislative committee, it was a huge fight for them to even get the reduced list of witnesses who would appear. The government just wanted to fast-track Bill C-38 through that process. I say shame because there are some reservations.

However, even in that short period of time, it belatedly became obvious to the government, at the 11th hour, that there were some real legitimate concerns about the protection of religious freedom in this country. Even then, the government missed the deadline for putting forward its amendments at committee. This is how inept the government is; it missed the deadline for putting forward its amendments.

It had to be through negotiations with the Conservative members on that committee that concessions were made. However we have very serious reservations about the strength of those amendments and whether they will really do the job of protecting religious freedom and freedom of religious expression in this country.

We heard again today, in his brief remarks to Motion No. 17, the government House leader reading an editorial from the Globe and Mail that said that there had been enough talk about this, that it should just go to a vote and get it over with. In other words, we should just rush it through and never mind that there may be people hauled before courts or tribunals and punished if they question homosexuality. We constantly hear that there is enough protection. We have heard those words before, as have Canadian.

Why is there this urgency? Gays and lesbians are getting married in Canada. What is going to change if Bill C-38 passes through the House? I would seriously doubt it will pass through the Senate before the Senate rises for the summer. What difference does it make to the government whether Bill C-38 sits in this place for the summer or sits in the other place for the summer?

Only one thing comes to mind and it is that Liberal members of Parliament, when they know that the majority of their constituents are opposed to same sex marriage, do not want to hear about it all summer as they are out in their ridings interacting with their constituents. They are hoping that if we can deal with it, pass it and get it shuffled over to the Senate, that somehow that will take it off Canadians' agenda.

It might come off the agenda of the House of Commons but I can say that there is no hope in hell that it will come off the agenda for real Canadians in the real world. However supposedly this is of great urgency.

What is our position? We are not opposed to hearing an hour or two of report stage of Bill C-38. I conveyed that on behalf of my Conservative colleagues over a week ago to the House leader but the government wants the bill completed.

My position and the position of the Conservative Party of Canada was that given the very serious reservations that Canadians have about the protection of religious freedom of expression surrounding the bill, why would we not want to take those amendments, the ones which we and many others believe are too weak, out into the real world and ask Canadians what they think? What would be wrong in doing that for the summer if the bill is still here at report stage?

For those Canadians watching today, report stage is that stage of the legislative process where a bill can be amended. It can be improved and fixed. That was our position and it remains our position.

The majority of us do not believe that the bill is fixable but we do believe that at a minimum it could be improved before we send it on to the other place. We would like to get the opinion of Canadians over the summer as to whether they feel any cold comfort whatsoever with the amendments that have been put forward, both at committee and now put forward for report stage, if indeed those are not ruled out of order the way the vast majority were when it was at the special legislative committee.

The two pieces of legislation that the government says are so urgent that they require either the passage of Motion No. 17 or the extraordinary step that has only ever been taken in times of national emergency of going to the Speaker this weekend and telling him that we must reconvene Parliament next Monday, I would argue that I have just successfully disputed whether there is any urgency whatsoever.

In the lives of real Canadians outside of this place, nothing is going to change whether we pass Bill C-48 or Bill C-38.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Exactly. One of my colleagues is prompting me a bit here about functions which they have committed to in their ridings. Many of those will be for next week.

Again I think I am not just speaking for the Conservative Party of Canada and our 98 members of Parliament. I think I could speak for all 308 members. I am sure they have events planned to which they have committed. Some might have been committed to some months ahead of time expecting, before this extremely abnormal request on the part of the government, that the House would rise on schedule tomorrow night at midnight. That is not going to happen.

I wanted to put that on the record just to clear any misconception there might be that we are talking about going on holiday on Friday. That is not the case. We are speaking to Motion No. 17 put forward by the hon. government House Leader, which states:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice,--

And I just talked about the usual practice.

--when the House adjourns on June 23, 2005, it shall stand adjourned until June 27, 2005; at any time on or after June 27, 2005, a Minister of the Crown may propose, without notice, a motion that, upon adjournment on the day on which the said motion is proposed, the House shall stand adjourned to a specified date not more than 95 days later; the said motion immediately shall be deemed to have been adopted, provided that, during the adjournment, for the purposes of any Standing Order, the House shall be deemed to stand adjourned pursuant to Standing Order 28; commencing June 27, 2005 and concluding on the day on which a motion that the House stand adjourned pursuant to this Order is adopted, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays shall be 12:00 midnight.

That sounds extremely convoluted to anybody that is trying to follow it. I could not even follow it and I was the one reading it.

What does it basically say? This motion allows the House to begin sitting again next week. Then, once the government is satisfied that it got everything it wanted, a minister can deem the House adjourned to a date 95 days into the future.

We have a situation where a minister can wave his magic wand and deem that the House is adjourned. Why would we support that?

Obviously, depending on when the government gets what it wants, the House could be conceivably out until November or December or whenever. Once the government gets the bills that it wants, and we have seen this happen and certainly I have seen it happen in the almost 12 years that I have been here, the government could use prorogation. The government would prorogue the House until it deemed it most advantageous for it to have the House sit again.

I do not think it is a huge secret, that I am about to reveal, that this particular government is the most scandal plagued government in the history of our Parliament. Obviously, the Liberals would just love to have some method whereby they would not have to face the opposition daily for question period and have to answer questions in this place.

I do not think it is beyond a reasonable assessment that if the government were to be granted this and were it to pass all the legislation that the government House leader said was “urgent legislation”, there would be at least in theory no reason for the House to sit much longer.

In fact, one of the things our party has been saying, with the exception of the same sex marriage legislation, is that there has not been a heck of a lot on the government's agenda for a year now.

Something else I always want to point out to people is that the Conservative Party of Canada is not in the business of opposing just for the sake of opposition. We are called the official opposition.

We assess each and every piece of legislation that comes before this place. We weigh it on its own merits. We determine whether or not it is in the best interests of the majority of Canadians. Then we determine whether we are going to support it or oppose it, whether we can support it if it is amended or oppose it unless amended. We take these positions.

We believe that is a responsible way that a political party in this place should operate. It is not a position that just because we are opposition we oppose for the sake of opposing.

It might come as a bit of a surprise not only to yourself, Mr. Speaker, but to the viewing public, that in the almost 12 years I have been here the parties that I have represented have supported more government legislation than they have opposed, even though they have been opposition parties and that continues today.

Of the current bills that are before this place, leading up to the dying days of this session, there are about 15 that are not tied up in committee or have not gone on to the other place. We support two-thirds of them, 10 out of the 15. As far as I am concerned, that would certainly indicate that, unlike what the government House leader just said, we are neither obstructionist nor are we constantly opposing the government's initiatives. We believe in weighing the pros and cons of each piece of legislation, weighing its merits and then determining our position.

The government gave its verbal commitment to the Bloc Québécois that it would only consider Bill C-48 and Bill C-38 if it got the extension into the summer. It said that if there were other issues, and I was there when we were discussing this, it would consider them on an ad hoc basis, only with agreement.

The government members failed to explain that when the House begins to vote on deferred divisions, for example, subamendments at third reading of Bill C-48 or Bill C-38, there will be times when the House will have nothing to do while it waits for the deferred division to come to a vote. It just cannot sit here idling in neutral. It is not like a government minister's limousine. The House will have to do something during that period of time. If the vote is deferred until the next day, we cannot just recess the House while we are waiting to have the vote.

The government promise to the Bloc Québécois members, to ensure they supported the extension so there could be more debate into July and the government assurance that only Bill C-38 would be discussed, is not entirely accurate.

I would also like to discuss why the government believes that it is so urgent that we get these two bills passed. A number of colleagues rose during questions and comments and asked the hon. government House leader exactly that question. They pointed out that, in the case of Bill C-48, the NDP budget companion bill, it will not come into effect until we know if there is a surplus.

I need to stop right here because one of the things that has frustrated me during my years as a member of Parliament is when governments start to talk about a surplus. Even the use of the word surplus is a misnomer in my books.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions for the House leader. He indicated to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a matter of great national interest and great urgency.

The fact of the matter is that Bill C-48 and the provisions thereof contain, to my knowledge, nothing that will be done within the next year. All of these expenditures are subject to there being a surplus of at least $2 billion at the end of the fiscal year 2006. The urgency of this is just simply not there.

How can the House leader claim this urgency when clearly we will have more than enough time in the continuation of Parliament in the fall to debate this, to vote on it and hopefully to hear from more Canadians who are very interested in ensuring that the economy of the country stays strong and that the democratic process in this country is preserved, namely that budget speeches are not changed on the fly after they are made, destroying a long time tradition in the House?

With respect to Bill C-38, I venture again to say that this is an abuse of democracy and is one in which we ought not to be engaging. We have had literally thousands and I would suggest probably even close to a million names on petitions on this particular issue.

For the government to use an extension of a session to go in violation of what the clear majority of Canadians want in this matter and an issue which, in the words of the Deputy Prime Minister, can be solved without changing the definition of marriage, all of this can be done in a timely and normal fashion when we return in the fall session.

Calling this an emergency to extend the session is just so specious it is almost unbelievable. I would like the House leader to try to justify his move on this particular issue.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice, when the House adjourns on June 23, 2005, it shall stand adjourned until June 27, 2005; at any time on or after June 27, 2005, a Minister of the Crown may propose, without notice, a motion that, upon adjournment on the day on which the said motion is proposed, the House shall stand adjourned to a specified date not more than 95 days later; the said motion immediately shall be deemed to have been adopted, provided that, during the adjournment, for the purposes of any Standing Order, the House shall be deemed to stand adjourned pursuant to Standing Order 28; commencing June 27, 2005 and concluding on the day on which a motion that the House stand adjourned pursuant to this Order is adopted, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays shall be 12:00 midnight.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Government Business No. 17 respecting the extension of the sitting of the House. Members are aware that the House is scheduled to adjourn on June 23.

Mr. Speaker, I would draw your attention to Marleau and Montpetit on page 347, which states:

There are times when the House may wish to temporarily set an adjournment time earlier or later than the time prescribed in the Standing Orders.

The process for a motion to extend the sitting was set out in a June 13, 1988 ruling by the Speaker.

First, the Speaker ruled that it was acceptable for the government to place such a motion under government notices of motions. This is because the Standing Orders themselves do not define what is to be in a motion from the government, nor do they limit the government's ability to place such a motion under government notices of motion.

Second, the Speaker then ruled that the government could initiate a motion to suspend the sitting provisions of the Standing Orders, and the Speaker noted that precedents and procedural authorities enabled the government to put forward a motion to suspend the sitting provisions rules.

Third, the Speaker ruled that such a motion can be adopted by a majority decision of the House. The Speaker stated that “there is no doubt that the House can amend or suspend its rules by unanimous consent and the House can also do so by a simple majority decision”.

Fourth, the Speaker then reminded the House that parliamentary reforms had not changed the practice of the House and had not rendered prior precedents inapplicable.

Therefore I would submit that the motion in Government Business No. 17 is consistent with the Speaker's June 13, 1988 ruling. It is also consistent with a motion to extend the sitting of the House which was adopted following the Speaker's ruling.

The purpose of the motion that is before us is quite simple. Urgent legislation that is before the House is being obstructed. I point to Bill C-48, the budget companion bill, that would provide for $4.5 billion in urgent funding for the environment, including public transit and an energy retrofit program for low income housing, training and post-secondary education to benefit, among others, aboriginal Canadians. Also in that bill are moneys for affordable housing, including housing for aboriginal Canadians, and foreign aid.

Yesterday the premier of Quebec asked the Bloc to support the legislation which would give more than $1 billion to Quebec. The government agrees with Premier Charest that the bill is clearly in the interests of Quebecers and, indeed, in the interests of all Canadians, and needs to be passed. I would urge the Bloc members to support the interests of Quebec and to respect the request of the premier of Quebec and support the passage of Bill C-48.

In order to ensure that we have an opportunity to pass Bill C-48, we also need to consider what the official opposition is now doing. The leader of the official opposition is blocking passage of legislation that would benefit Canadian workers, students, the environment and foreign aid. Bill C-48 maintains the principles of the government's budgetary policy. It includes balanced budgets and expenditures in priority areas, and yet we have the example of the official opposition moving concurrence motions or other dilatory tactics for the simple purpose of looking to run out the clock until the scheduled adjournment of the House on June 23.

The opposition is also preventing the House from dealing with Bill C-38. The government is prepared to support an amendment to the bill at report stage that would provide greater certainty for religious institutions under the Income Tax Act. The amendment itself would be beyond the scope of the bill and it would require unanimous consent of the House. However I would hope that members across the way would give the House the opportunity to hear that amendment and that all members would wish to support such an initiative.

The government recognizes that the purpose of debate in the House is to help people make up their minds on issues. All members have clearly made up their minds on Bill C-38 so debate itself should not be used to delay Parliament from deciding.

If we were to look back to the work done by the justice committee, although I know hon. members across the way and others would disagree, but the justice committee had detailed cross country hearings on civil marriage in 2002 and 2003. We have had extensive debate in the House on Bill C-38 at second reading. I indicated to my hon. colleague, the opposition House leader and other House leaders, that every member who wanted to speak to Bill C-38 should be allowed and will be given the opportunity to speak at second reading. I think that has happened. In committee we have heard from all sides on the bill.

I want to draw to the attention of members that an editorial in today's Globe and Mail stated:

There is nothing materially useful to add. It's time for Parliament to vote on the bill, and for all parties to let the Commons have its say.

The government agrees with that and I think it is important that parliamentarians deal with this issue. Canadians elected members to the House to work in the interest of Canadians. It is not time to adjourn. It is time to look at how we can better serve the interests of Canadians. We should continue to sit until we pass Bill C-48 and work toward passing Bill C-38, which is why the government put forward the motion to extend the sitting.

I have indicated publicly that I am giving the opposition the opportunity to show that Parliament can work. If the members obstruct the motion, I certainly think that closure is always a possibility, as provided under the Standing Orders, but I certainly hope that will not be necessary and that all members would take the opportunity to support the motion so that we can continue the work in the House and continue to serve the interests of Canadians.

Petitions

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of presenting, in both official languages, a petition signed by over 100 residents of West Nova calling upon all members of Parliament to support Bill C-38, an act respecting civil marriage.

An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments

[Jeremy Harrison, Conservative, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Tommy Douglas would be spinning in his grave if he saw the NDP crawling into bed with what is the most criminal and corrupt government in the history of this country.

I will tell members another thing that I find disgraceful. I know the riding that this hon. member represents, which is adjacent to my riding. She represents northern Manitoba; I represent northern Saskatchewan. People in northern Saskatchewan, and I am sure northern Manitoba, think that the gun registry is one of the biggest wastes of money in the history of this country. This hon. member voted for $55 million more for the gun registry.

If people in Flin Flon knew that the member was voting for more money for the gun registry, they would not be very happy. The member thinks that she can sneak this by them, that she can simply vote for more money for the gun registry and they will not notice. Well she has another thing coming because they will know that she voted for more money for the gun registry.

In northern Saskatchewan and northern Manitoba, people do not support Bill C-38, the government's attempt to ram same-sex marriage down the throats of Canadians. The hon. member repeatedly made statements about how she did not support it and her constituents did not support it. What happens? When push comes to shove, the member votes do destroy the traditional definition of marriage.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and speak in the House with you in the chair, Sir. I was going to say with you, Mr. Speaker, ruling the roost, but I am not sure it would be a compliment, although hopefully it will give me a couple of marks that I can use later.

We are here today debating Bill C-48. This is a budget bill that was put together for the prime purpose of keeping the present government in power. It was a $4.6 billion deal between the NDP and the Liberals to get NDP support to prop up the Liberal government.

This was at a time when not only were the Liberals buying a party, and they did buy a whole party through this process, but they were starting to try to buy individual members in the House. I think that goes a long way toward explaining why there is so much cynicism in the country. When Canadians sit back and look at some of the action the government has taken on just to stay where it is, it appalls them.

I have a couple of issues to start with and then I would like to get into what my party and I think about where the country should be and what kind of country it could be if it were properly managed.

What we have now is a $4.6 billion budget bill that is two pages long and does not have the programs or the regulations to back up spending that money. The authorization is given to cabinet to “develop and implement” the programs, as it is stated in the bill, and to pay out the funds as it sees fit.

Does that not remind us somewhat of what happened with ad scam? Money was thrown around, hundreds of millions of dollars of our money, without proper authority and without the proper regulations, checks and balances in place to make sure it was being spent properly.

Here we have $4.6 billion that will be dispensed through the authorization of the cabinet without any documentation to back it up or to bring to the House so Canadians can have a look at how it is going to be spent and if it is going to be spent wisely. That in and of itself is a huge problem.

When we look for some of the things that are not in Bill C-48, as many of my colleagues have alluded to, it is quite alarming. In the NDP priorities that were part of the deal made with the Liberals, things were left out and forgotten. We could go on about agriculture and a few other things, but we will move on.

Before I get into it too deeply, I would like to thank the members of the Conservative Party who sat on the finance committee. As we know, there were many late nights with long hours and pretty intense debate. I remember one night being here until almost midnight when the finance committee was in a parallel sitting to the House to deal with this bill.

The members for Medicine Hat, Portage—Lisgar, Peace River and others who sit on that committee did a tremendous job of trying to hold the government to account and also of bringing forward good, solid amendments. Had those amendments been accepted, we would be able to move forward. The government completed rejected most of those issues.

As it ended up, the bill that came back to the House was a title with nothing below it because we could not agree on any of it. We are very concerned, as most Canadians are, that this money is going to be spent and spent in a way that is not open to public scrutiny and could be mismanaged.

We as the Conservative Party stand and criticize the government to hold it to account, which is part of our mandate, but our other mandate is to have alternatives to what the government is doing and to have our own vision of where Canada should go.

This country is blessed with natural resources and an expanse that should allow every citizen of Canada a good life and an ability to work, to feed their families, to plan and save for the future, and to have the wherewithal to educate their children. These are the issues that most families talk about when they come to talk to me.

They would like to see some substantive tax breaks for families so they can decide. We can get into the child care situation the government is promoting, in which it is going to create many day care spaces, not worrying about people who work shift work and not worrying about people in rural areas. That will be for just certain aspects of society.

We in the Conservative Party are saying that all families should be given a tax break so they can make the decisions and have a choice as to how they raise their own children. Most parents, when it comes right down to it, would prefer to raise their own children, but most families are now are two income families. Both parents work because it takes six months out of every year just to pay their tax bill.

Parents have to work half their lives just to pay taxes. That is the reason they have to work. If we were able to restructure the tax system and leave the money in the pockets of parents, they would have choices as to how their children should be cared for and they would have a few bucks to save for their future, their retirement and their children's educations.

A lot of Canadians will never realize the hope and dream of owning a home because they do not have the funds left over at the end of the month to put toward a mortgage. We have to change that. Everybody should have the opportunity to have affordable housing. That is right in the Conservatives platform. We support Canadians having affordable homes.

As for this idea that we have to take the money away from all Canadians so we can direct it back to them, should we not leave it with them and let them make the decisions on how they are going to spend their funds? Does that not add up?

There is a regional disparity in Canada. There is this financial imbalance we talk about. This is another thing that we as a nation need to be addressing. We need to make sure that all areas of Canada have the opportunity for economic growth and stability. With that comes the opportunity for citizens to enjoy a good quality of career, to own their own home and to have peace of mind knowing that they have been able to put a few bucks away to educate their children or for their own retirement.

When people are empowered in that way, when they make those decisions for themselves, it also blends into creating a society that looks more toward itself to solve its problems than anywhere else. That is where people should be looking, but we have to give them the means to work through those problems. I think that if we levelled out the economic situation across this country and gave everybody that hand up instead of a handout, that is the way to improve things.

Part of the deal the NDP made with the Liberals is really amazing. It cost them $4.6 billion to buy an entire party on the premise that the Liberals would get support in the House. There still were not enough votes to ensure the Liberals' success, so they had to try to buy off more people in the House. They were successful in some cases and unsuccessful in others. Part of the deal was that the NDP wanted the tax cuts taken out of the budget, so the Liberals said they would do it, they would take them out of the budget and then bring them back in another way.

Therefore, not only did they spend $4.6 billion to buy some votes that were not enough to sustain them in the House, they reneged on the part of the deal regarding tax breaks, because those tax breaks are still going through and the NDP is still in the House to prop up the Liberals. It is almost as ridiculous as some of the backbench Liberals who are so opposed to Bill C-38 and are continually propping their government up long enough so they can pass Bill C-38. Some of these people will need to answer to their own constituents.

I would like to get into some of the party policy that Conservatives think needs to be implemented in this country to keep it strong and viable, to make it an even greater country than it is, to make it as great as it should be. As I say, I am from Alberta, and Albertans are blessed with resources, many of which are as yet untapped. We have oil, coal, farmland and forests. Everything is there.

I suppose that those of us living in Alberta have an advantage due to that, but because of the way this country is structured and because of the willingness to share shown by provinces that have more than others, we should be making sure it is done in a way such that the people who do not have as much are brought up to the same standard.

We believe that in order to have a strong economy and maintain good health, Canada must have strong, coordinated and achievable environmental policies. A Conservative government believes that responsible exploration and development, conservation and renewal of our environment are vital to our continued well-being as a nation and as individuals.

Being from Alberta, I say that because of the oil and gas exploration and the many things that go on there. At the same time that we explore and develop those very necessary resources, we have to be conscious of the environment. It is a proven fact that when the economy is going well, the most attention is given to the safeguarding of the environment.

In many of the classes in which I speak, like most of the members here who do the same when they go around to schools, I note that the environment is a key issue to the young people in our country. Good for them, I say. I am not so proud of what my generation has done to the environment, but the next generation is going to be prepared to fix it. We have to ensure that the tools are there to do it. Responsible development and responsible exploration, with an eye on both, and being able to facilitate that while protecting the environment, is part of what needs to be done and it is part of what we believe in.

Petitions

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Grey—Bruce—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present to the House today.

The first set of petitions all speak in opposition to Bill C-38. They pray that Parliament pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Committees of the House

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from British Columbia for sharing his time with me.

I understand the justice report is about the closure of a number of RCMP detachments. It is important that we look beyond the specific detachments mentioned in the report. For the last 10 or 12 years, the problem with RCMP detachments has been a problem. I live in the small community of Sidney, British Columbia which has a local RCMP detachment staffed by 25 officers.

As far back as I can remember this detachment has been chronically understaffed for a number of reasons. Typically the staffing is short by about 25%. Quite often when it sends out a platoon, two officers will be left with one officer out patrolling in a car. For a variety reasons, from maternity leave to staffing shortages to transfers, the detachment is unable to refill positions.

Why has our national police force been put in this position when it comes to replacing members? Sometimes a detachment will wait a long time to fill positions, as we see in the report. A number of small detachments across the country are being shut down completely.

In the early days of the Liberal government, it all but closed the RCMP training depot in Regina because it was not doing its job. We ended up with a serious situation. For years we had very small number of classes, if any, to train new police officers. Therefore, the backlog was enormous. The shortage of hundreds of police officers created difficulties for RCMP detachments across the country.

What was the government's response? Many reports say that the government chose not put front line police officers on the streets so it could save around $2 billion. The Liberals made a very definitive decision to remove front line police officers because there was not enough training to fill the vacancies. Instead they spent billions of dollars on a gun registry. No one in Canada believes people should be walking around the streets with guns.

Prior to this infamous gun registry, on which the government spent billions of dollars, people were not allowed to carry handguns. If they wanted to move them from their home to a shoot or a range, they had to go to their local police for a permit. In effect we had a form of a registry for handguns with the local police. However, the government, in its wisdom, decided it would spend billions of dollars. How could we possibly spend $2 billion on a database, on a gun registry?

One only has to look at the sponsorship program. It does not take a lot of imagination to see where the money has gone. I am sure we will find out in the years ahead, once we see more audits and information come forward, that a great deal of the money probably went to people who were very good supporters of the Liberal Party of Canada. I have no one doubt in my mind that we will see contracts given to high donors to the Liberal Party. It is kind of the normal way of doing business.

Also, we have been put in a more difficult situation in the last three or four years since September 11, 2001.

Canada Customs is in places to deal with ferry traffic going to the U.S. When people go into the U.S., they are pre-cleared. However, U.S. immigration officials refuse to operate inside Canada unless they have an armed police officer with them. This border crossing is right across from the street where I used to live. The Anacortes ferry terminal had one or two sailings a day, four hours a day. An RCMP officer from the detachment in Sidney had to be with the U.S. Immigration Service.

I note the Senate committee has come forward and said that our Canadian customs people need one of two things. They either need armed police officers with them as they are secure our border or they need to be armed. It is ironic that the government will not give Canadian customs officials sidearms or at least an armed police officer, but it will do it for American immigration officials who work inside Canada. That is unbelievable. That is how it is today.

U.S. immigration workers working at the Anacortes ferry terminal in Sidney or downtown in the inner harbour in Victoria where people go on the Coho to the U.S get Canadian police officers because they will not work unless they are in the presence of an armed officer for security reasons. We do not even do that for our own customs officers.

Where are the government's priorities? The RCMP is chronically underfunded. The government decided to put billions of dollars into a gun registry, which by all accounts is not providing an ounce of benefit other than to some people who may be good Liberals and who are who sending in contracts to the national firearms registry and, lo and behold, getting millions of dollars. How could the government possibly spend $2 billion on a database. I would love to have that contract. It is absolutely amazing.

The government cut back training at the RCMP depot in Regina to a bare minimum. This detachment has been chronically understaffed. This is happening in detachments across the country. Sometimes detachments have to wait six months or more to get a replacement for an officer who has been transferred somewhere else. Watch duty officers at these RCMP detachments have to deal with this problem when they scheduling officers. They have to find a way to cut the number of police officers on a platoon because they do not have the bodies.

In my community, the RCMP detachment was pretty much chronically understaffed by about 25%. It was a very serious problem. The remaining officers had to fill regular shift schedules. Officers also had to be sent over to the ferry terminals because U.S. immigration officers would not work unless they had an armed officer with them. We do not do that for our own customs officers.

This is about priorities. The government needs to focus on its priorities. We have spent a large portion of this spring session on Bill C-38, the same sex marriage bill. Again, it is a matter of priorities. Why are we not focusing on jobs, the economy, getting taxes down, looking at our health care system? The government's priority is focused on getting Bill C-38 through the House.

We have very different priorities on this side of the House. We want to bring forward legislation that will have a meaningful impact to Canadians right across this country. It is about priorities. It is time the government had a look at what it has done for the last 12 years. Anyone could come to the conclusion that the Liberals have their priorities all wrong.

An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, it may be because it is late at night, but this is one of the rare times that I have heard references made to people such Marcus Aurelius, Hobbes and de Tocqueville and I would like to congratulate the hon. member for referring to these people. However it seems to me that when the member brought these historical figures forward and seemed to suggest that all the problems he was talking about were problems of today's world in Canada, did he realize that those great people of the past were talking about a balance in their civic life?

Everyone of us in the House are anxious to develop democracy. We all want, as he suggested, some sort of balance. Why does the hon. member not recognize that everybody in the House has a knowledge of history? Everybody understands that the history of Canada is all about bringing the strains of everything that he talked about together and that we wish to make this country work together. Why does his party not try to come together in the dying hours of this Parliament, at this time, to make this House work for the benefit of Canada and get our budget through in a compromise in a sense of what Canada is all about, not what the collapse of the Roman Empire was all about but what Canada is all about in making compromise and being tolerant and respectful of one another's work so we could get Bill C-48 and Bill C-38 through and move on so that next fall we can come back together here and achieve what the Canadian people want us to achieve?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Grey—Bruce—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House tonight to speak to Bill C-48. Bill C-48 is also known as the desperation bill that was struck with the NDP. It is also known as the power budget. It was brought about by a Prime Minister in such a dither to stay in power that he made a desperate attempt to do so and in doing so decided to go fishing. Off he went fishing on the socialist river. He landed a catch of 19. I have been on a few hunting and fishing trips, but I never had a trip that cost me $240 million a fish.

This trip is paid by the Canadian taxpayer. Not only did each one of these fish the Prime Minister landed cost more than $242 million each, the government also went and cancelled a big part of the original budget that would have created hundreds of thousands of jobs in Canada, thus doubling the financial blow to Canadians.

The budget is also filled with unplanned spending and it is an approach that is a recipe for waste and mismanagement. It is $4.6 billion that will be in the control of 30-odd Sheriffs of Nottingham who surely will be looting all Canadians, but definitely these merry spenders will not be giving it to the poor.

The budget is a joke to Canadians, to those in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, who depend on the promised services that might never come to fruition and to the many farmers who have been devastated by BSE who will not receive anything from this desperate power budget. There is not one red cent in additional funding for agriculture in this $4.6 billion. Shame.

A responsible approach to this or any budget would be for the government to first ensure that existing money is spent effectively to improve programs and services to ensure that nobody is left behind.

Liberals have a lot of experience in spending without a plan and we have seen the ridiculous results. Take, for example, the gun registry that has been mentioned here before, but it has to be mentioned again. It was supposed to cost $2 million and it has ballooned to almost $2 billion without saving any lives. In fact, last week the government voted to dump millions more into it instead of scrapping it when it had the chance, or at the very least fixing the flaws in the program. Even some members from across the House who said they did not approve of it sat on their hands and let it happen.

In 1997 real federal program spending per capita was $3,466. In 2005-06 it will have risen to $4,255. That is an increase of $800 per capita in volume terms or $3,200 for a family of four. Current Liberal-NDP spending plans will take it to $4,644 by 2009-10. That is a projected increase of almost $1,200 per person. However, increases in real government spending do not necessarily equate to solving the problems or even getting better results.

The Conservative Party of Canada believes that our goal should be to give Canadians the highest standard of living in the world. That should be the goal of any government. Our goal is that every Canadian who wants a job should be able to get a job. With this part of the budget that has been taken out, job creation is defeated.

Our goal is that every region of the country will enjoy economic growth and new opportunities for the people of all regions. Our goal is to make Canada the economic envy of the world, and we can do it. We want every mom and dad in Canada to be able to go to bed at night knowing that their children have the chance to live the Canadian dream. We want them to be able to get post-secondary schooling and to find good, well paying jobs, and that goes back to that job creation, so they can afford to start a family, buy a house, save for their retirement and ensure that they can have a bit left over for summer camps and a vacation. Maybe they will want to start a business. One can only do that if the government does not tax too much and spend too much. The government eliminated the only benefit in the original budget to business when it crawled through the window and into the bed of the NDP. Lust, just a pure lust for power.

According to Statistics Canada, while government spending went up, Canadian families saw their after tax income stall in 2002 and fall in 2003. A dollar left in the hands of a homemaker or an entrepreneur is much more beneficial than a dollar left in the hands of a bureaucrat or politician.

The Conservative Party has tried to move amendments to make the spending in Bill C-48 more accountable to Canadians and to reflect a more prudent fiscal approach.

The Conservative amendment to clause 1 would raise the amount of surplus that would be set aside for debt paydown. The interest saved as a result of additional federal debt paydown is needed to prevent cuts to social programs as a result of the pending demographic crunch.

The Conservative amendment to clause 2 would force the government to table a plan by the end of each year, outlining how it intended to spend the money in this bill. Spending without a plan is a recipe for waste and mismanagement. It is cruel not only to taxpayers but, more important, to those who depend on promised services.

The Conservative amendment to clause 3 would ensure that important accountability and transparency mechanisms would be in place for corporations wholly owned by the federal government. Accountability and transparency should be paramount to any government, especially in this case, after what we have seen happen in recent years.

However, the Liberals only agreed to this bill to save their political skin, a deal that they cut to win the support of the NDP. It is shameful that they are willing to spend billions of taxpayer dollars to fund an addiction for power.

If all this spending was such a wonderful idea, I would like to know why it was not included in the February budget. In the end, the Liberals spent $4.6 billion to buy 19 votes

However, now, we have to look at the other side and why the NDP members sold their souls for $242 million each. It is not about the $4.6 billion or the budget at all. It is all about their will to get a bill passed, Bill C-38, a bill that two-thirds of Canadians do not want to see and a large number from across the House. It is a bill that should not even be on the books. Hundreds of my constituents tell me that. This is another example of the lack of direction and ideas from the government.

The Conservative Party is the official opposition. The job of any good opposition party is to call the government on anything not good for Canadians. Bill C-48 is not good for Canadians. Dithering and desperation together can be thrown into a hat, but when we pull them out, they do not spell delicious . I do not like the taste of this Let's Make a Deal budget. I will be voting against Bill C-48. We will continue to hold the government to account where spending is unfocused and wasteful on behalf of Canadians.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate seeing you in the chair again, first in respect of Bill C-38, and now in the context of the House with respect to Bill C-48.

I too want to make a few comments here. I think some of my Liberal colleagues have a lack of understanding as to what the function of Parliament actually is. Going back to the time of the Magna Carta, Parliament was simply a device that would hold the king accountable for the spending of money. The nobles at that time simply revolted and said they would not pay any more money unless the king took their needs into account.

Parliament is essentially that concept. The role of the opposition, and indeed the role of everyone outside of the executive, is to hold the executive accountable. I see at least three members of the executive here tonight. It is our responsibility as members of the opposition, as well as the responsibility of backbenchers in the Liberal Party, to hold the government accountable.

This is not an issue of Liberals asking Conservatives questions or New Democrats asking Conservatives questions; it seems the only ones who are prepared to stand up and speak about this issue are the Conservatives. Every party should be standing up and holding the executive accountable for the money. We are talking about $4.6 billion; no, $4.5 billion, I am sorry, that is correct. Hanging around Liberals one begins to think of money in that kind of way. In my riding, $100 million is still a lot of money, never mind $4.5 billion.

That is our responsibility here: to ask the executive what it is doing with $4.5 billion. I dare say that if I stood up and read the bill into the record as part of my speech, Canadians would be no wiser as to what the executive is actually going to do with their money.

I was a little disappointed to hear the socialist colleagues of the Liberals state that we are somehow wasting time by standing up in Parliament and debating this issue and asking these questions. Wasting time, that is what was said. It has been mentioned that thousands of dollars in overtime is being spent because of this debate. Let us put that into a realistic context.

That is thousands of dollars in overtime when we are talking about the expenditure of $4.5 billion. What we are doing here tonight in terms of overtime does not come anywhere near to what that money could gain in terms of interest or, indeed, if it were put back in the pockets of Canadians. So yes, there is a price to democracy. Yes, there is a price to running Parliament, but our obligation to the people of Canada is to ask questions of the executive to determine exactly where that money is going.

The point was made also that in another lifetime the Conservatives were spendthrifts and spent all kinds of money. I just want to make a short point here. As I understand it, before the Conservatives came into power, the debt and the deficit were run up by the Liberals. It was a huge debt, especially for that time.

If we look at the spending during the Mulroney years, if we took into account what we had to pay in terms of interest on the debt that the Liberals accumulated during the good years, and if we took that interest away, out of the payments, the Mulroney government would have run a balanced book every single year. That is the reality.

There are some of us in the Conservative Party today who were not happy with Mr. Mulroney. We were unhappy with Mr. Mulroney for other reasons, but in fairness to Mr. Mulroney, he balanced the books. If it had not been for the Liberal debt, running this deficit would not have occurred. That is absolutely clear. Now the Liberals are saying--

Civil Marriage Act

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we are strong and unwavering in our commitment to see Bill C-38 pass but we want to ensure that all members have the opportunity to debate it. I must say that if the opposition would stop its filibustering and obstructionism, the fact is that we could see it passed.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, our principal legislative objectives continue to be Bill C-43, the third reading vote of which will take place after question period, and Bill C-48. The government believes these bills reflect public interest and the enactment of both of these bills is required before the House adjourns for the summer. As the hon. member mentioned, if the House does not pass Bill C-48, we will be here in July and August. Consequently, we will continue to give these bills priority until they are disposed of.

We will then consider report stage of Bill C-38, the civil marriage bill; Bill C-25; Bill C-28; Bill C-52, the Fisheries Act; Bill C-47; Bill C-53; Bill C-55, the bankruptcy bill; and Bill C-37, the do not call legislation.

Marriage

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I need not take any lessons from the hon. member. Our commitment and responsibility are to Canadians. That is why we are in the House. That is why we put forward legislation. That is why we debate legislation.

The real question is why the Leader of the Opposition continues to delay the debate on Bill C-38, and why the Leader of the Opposition continues to put forward procedural motions instead of debating budget bills and debating other issues that are important to Canadians.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the hon. member begins to play politics with such an important piece of legislation. Our approach on this bill has been consistent right from the beginning. Our commitment is to get the budget bills passed and pass as many other pieces of legislation as possible, like Bill C-38. We have demonstrated our commitment by extending the sitting hours to midnight so that we can have more legislation debated in the House.

It is the Conservatives who do not want to allow Bill C-38 to come to this House and who will not allow for the democratic process to proceed.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today the justice minister is saying that Bill C-38 will not make it through. I would like to ask a question of the government House leader. This debate on equal marriage has been going on now for almost three years. Last June the Prime Minister promised, “Your fundamental rights don't belong to a political party. They belong to Canada and we're going to protect them”.

Why is the government selling out on human rights? Where is the commitment to pass Bill C-38?

Petitions

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to rise and present a petition today on behalf of the residents of Prince George—Peace River, in particular the citizens of the communities of Tumbler Ridge, Wonowon, Hudson's Hope, Charlie Lake, Baldonnel, Cecil Lake and the city of Fort St. John.

These petitioners wish to draw to the attention of the House of Commons that they believe that marriage is the best foundation for families and the raising of children. They note that the institution of marriage as the union between a man and a women is being challenged under Bill C-38 in this place.

They also note that marriage is the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament. Therefore, they call upon Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Committees of the House

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the legislative committee considering Bill C-38, an act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes.

I want to take this opportunity to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for appointing me chair of that legislative committee on February 24. I was reluctant, but it has proven to be a very interesting and enriching experience.

I would also like to thank the entire team from the House of Commons for the excellent services it provided to the legislative committee.

Budget Implementation Act, 2005

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I always find it laughable when New Democrats, especially those from British Columbia, come to this House and preach about fiscal responsibility. Now, as a lifelong British Columbian, that is laughable. The $400 million that the NDP threw away on the fast ferry project could have gone to save lives, to help in waiting rooms and to help students, and yet this member has the gall to stand in this House and say that they stand for fiscal responsibility. What a joke. It is no wonder that that party was reduced to two seats in that campaign and it is no wonder that its leader left to go across the floor to the Liberal Party.

I cannot believe the member would actually get up in this place and start talking about how members of Parliament come to this place and do not do their jobs.

We recognized that the Canadian public wanted to make sure that Bill C-43 was thoroughly debated, and we did that. It is the Conservative Party that passed amendments at committee. The New Democrats did not pass a single amendment at that committee. We in the Conservative Party did our due diligence.

As for the issue of voting in this House, the most comprehensive and difficult social policy that this House has seen probably in a generation, the definition of marriage, our party had a free vote on that issue. I stood and I had the ability to freely vote and disagree with my leader on that issue. I had the capacity to vote and to speak freely on that issue because I happen to believe and support Bill C-38.

What did the New Democrats do? They told the member for Churchill to sit in her place, shut up, do not vote and do not represent her values. That is the New Democratic Party of the year 2005 and that is why that party is going nowhere.

Supply

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I stand before the House today somewhat concerned and saddened. I am saddened by the fact that this government and previous Liberal governments have continued to undermine and erode the very social fabric that has made Canada the great country that it is today.

The social fabric I am referring to is the family and the importance of the family in Canadian society. I find it disturbing, no, reprehensible, that this government continues to undermine the family as a unit, and also how this government continues to dismantle the things that family stands for, whether it is Bill C-38 and in its infinite wisdom changing the definition of marriage, or now, through its social engineering of having the state raise our children for us.

As Canadians we should be saddened and concerned by the road of moral decay that this government continues to take us down. We must be diligent in standing up for what is right for the family.

We must be wary of the Liberal government's hidden agenda when it comes to undermining the family. Let me give some specifics on how this government has discriminated against the family through its hidden agenda.

First is taxation. This government attempts to buy the Canadian public by going on spending sprees with taxpayers' money, yet it continues to discriminate against families in how families are taxed. For example, if families were allowed to split their income, then maybe more of their tax dollars and indeed more options would be made available to those who choose to stay home and raise their children.

At the heart of this issue is the right of a mother and a father to choose. Day care in Canada should be about the ability to choose, not about a two tier child care system as proposed by this Liberal government, not about a program run by a scandal plagued government that has never in its life run a program on time or on budget.

Government bureaucracies such as the proposed national child care program simply do not work. They certainly do not work nearly as well as the nurturing love of a mother and a father.

This arrogant government would have us believe that it is better suited or has more ability than a mother and a father to raise their own children. This is absolute nonsense. It is insulting to parents. Who does the government think it is and why does it assume that it knows best?

An article entitled “Mothering is Crucial to Child Development” talks about national day care:

It's not that the world hasn't experienced the disaster that a national day care system can bring to a nation. The Soviet Union, under communism, required all mothers to join the paid workforce with all children placed in state-operated child care. The USSR became a dysfunctional society for many reasons as evidenced by its high rate of crime, alcoholism, divorce, abortions, extremely low birth rate, etc. One of the reasons for this tragic dysfunction was cited by former Soviet Premier, Mikhail Gorbachev, in his book Perestroika: New Thinking for Our Country and the World (1987), in which he claimed the dysfunction was due, in part, to the separation of children from their mothers in their early years, by placing them in the state-operated child care facilities. This, he claimed, was a major contributing factor for the breakdown of Russian society.

While this proposed plan would not force parents to put their children in the proposed government operated child care system, the increased taxation resulting from the establishment of this system will make home care for children a diminishing option for parents.

What most parents would like is choice or more options. Why is this government so set against options for parents? Whether it is institutional day care, home care provided by the mother or father, or home care provided by another family member, parents should have the right to choose.

When I was born, my mother had a very successful career out of her home. She made the choice to take time to raise her children and to be with the kids as they were growing up. She chose to stay home while she raised her three children. As a family we could not afford it anymore than most of the working families today can, but it was a choice that my parents made freely.

My wife's parents also chose to stay home and raise their children. My mother-in-law, an accomplished artist, chose to stay at home and raise her four sons and one daughter. She also made sacrifices, not because she had to but because she chose to.

My wife is a successful businesswoman. She made the decision, as many of our generation did, to raise a family and continue to have a career. When we decided to have children, what was important to us was to have our family around us helping us with this very important task of raising, caring and nurturing our kids. We wanted the influence of our parents, not an institutional system, and we were very fortunate to have that option available to us. There are many parents today who would like to have that option available to them.

Grandparents are an integral part of every family. Unfortunately there are many families today who do not have their own grandparents available to them, but that does not mean this option is not available.

As our population continues to age, many seniors looking for opportunities to earn some extra income make great child care providers. Of course many of them do not have the institutional education that professional day care workers are required to have today. However, that does not make them any less effective. These individuals are the wisdom keepers who, through their determination, perseverance and dedication to family values built this country and made it what it is today.

Day care providers are not the only ones who can provide an educational environment for our children. Parents should also be given the right to choose.

Let me tell the House about the Langleys. Sandra and David are friends of ours who decided to home school their children. They receive no monetary compensation for what they do. As a matter of fact, they have made financial sacrifices to do what they do. Both Sandra and David are professionals with successful careers. As their children came along, they decided that one of them would stay at home to participate in raising and educating their children.

Let me give the House another example of a family who has made financial sacrifices to choose the opportunity to stay at home and educate their children. The Koolsbergen family not only decided to provide their own day care, but they wanted to home school their kids as well and have done so very successfully. Their oldest son has just completed his first year in university as an A student.

The Liberal government plan is intolerant of the Langleys and the Koolsbergens and other families like them. The minister of social engineering says that parents are not capable of educating their own children and that only professionals can. That may be one option, but it is not the only option.

As stated in an editorial in the National Post on October 26, 2004:

Instinctive, loving interactions between parents and their children are the best way to ensure healthy mental and physical childhood outcomes. These are things that cannot be taught at a teachers' college.... Parents should have a wide range of options in regard to their children's care and education. Our priority should be to preserve existing options - whether provided by the free market or social networks - not to shut infants into one-size-fits-all programs.

The government is misleading the public about day care. The government does not have a plan, has never had a plan, and will never be able to carry out a plan that is fair, equitable and affordable to all people in this country. The Liberals are creating a two tier day care system in this country, one tier for the Liberal plan and one tier for the rest of us who are forced to fend for ourselves. Money for some, nothing for most.

This two tier child care system does not respect the needs of the majority of parents. If we are going to talk about the government getting involved in the lives of our children, choice still needs to be the primary consideration.

The Liberals are not being honest about the cost of this program. They have committed $5 billion over five years, but less than $1 billion will flow in the first year, and the actual cost will be much more than $5 billion. The people who are going to get stuck with the bill will sadly be the taxpayers. We are the ones who will end up paying for a system that will only increase the number of subsidized, regulated day care spaces from 7% to 10%. That is right, $5 billion-plus to increase spaces from 7% to 10%.

When the question was asked of the minister of social engineering about the long term cost of child care, his response was, “You really don't know. In fact, you don't need to know because the future is going to decide it”. It sounds to me like the minister does not care because it will not end up being his problem, it will be somebody else's. It will be another government's problem for another day. In other words, the government does not mind making the financial commitments today that my kids, my constituents' kids and their generation will have to be financially responsible for tomorrow.

It would seem that not only does the government have a hidden agenda on this program, it has a hidden agenda in the actual cost as well. Tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars a year, but the saddest part is the lack of trust the Liberals put in parents, the lack of trust to give parents a real choice on how they would like to have their children raised.

This day care program will not give any options to those who do not fit in the rigid one system fits all proposed by the government. Shift workers, stay at home parents, or those living in rural ridings like Niagara West--Glanbrook will not be able to access this program, but they will sure get an opportunity to pay for it. Just like those who choose to send their children to Christian schools, they will be forced to pay for one system without enjoying the benefits of another.

If we are going to talk about the government getting involved in our lives, choice still needs to be the primary consideration. The Conservative Party supports choice for parents. The Conservative Party recognizes that parents are in the best position to determine how to care for and educate their children. The Conservative plan is universal and equitable. The Conservative plan will give cash subsidies directly to parents. The Conservative plan will allow parents to make their own child care choices. The Conservative Party will treat all parents and families equally.

Statistics Act

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the NDP caucus and the people of the riding of Winnipeg Centre, I am pleased to enter into the debate on Bill S-18 dealing with the census information.

Before I begin my presentation tonight, I would like to expand a little bit on what my colleague from Kelowna--Lake Country was talking about. I am of the same view as he. Just because an agreement is 100 years old does not mean it is stale-dated. It does not have an expiry date unless such expiry date was freely spoken to at the time or was entered into the original deal. The analogy we could use is the government's treatment of first nation's treaties. Just because they are 150 years old and just because they contain language that we have a hard time accepting today, or some people do, does not mean that they had some kind of expiry date or sunset clause, unless there actually was a sunset clause.

I am concerned as we enter into the debate. It is a good graphic illustration of the advantage and the benefit of reasonable debate in the tone that we have seen tonight and it gives us pause to reflect on the complexity of what we are being asked to do here today. What would seem like a pretty simple and straightforward issue is anything but that.

I, for one, have had hundreds of representations to my office in the form of faxes, phone calls and petitions tabled with me from people who can see no good reason that they should not have access to all of that information from the census data prior to 1911, or at least in that grey area of 1901 to 1911.

However when we look at the competing interests here, the legitimate interests of historians, statisticians and genealogists, whether people are doing it as a hobby or as a career, their legitimate interests in knowing this information is compared with the absolute right to privacy that we uphold to the very end of our being in the House of Commons. It is a conflict. It is a tension between two competing interests that cannot be viewed lightly.

Looking at this issue in the larger sense, I would ask, first, for my colleagues to consider and to pass judgment on whether or not it is appropriate that the bill should be coming from the other place. I feel strongly that were there the political will, it is almost abrogating our obligations, our duties and our responsibilities to have not dealt with this issue in the House of Commons from the House of Commons.

The government could have introduced the legislation through the House of Commons rather than through the Senate but it chose not to. This is fundamentally wrong for a number of reasons, not the least of which the Senate is not an elected body. We are the elected legislators and lawmakers and the federal jurisdiction in the House of Commons. I just wanted to preface my remarks with that one observation and criticism. It should be originating here. It should be a bill that begins with “C” for Commons, not “S” for Senate.

Much has been made of the idea of whether or not a promise was made. Was there a guarantee in perpetuity of privacy? I find it hard to believe that was not at least frequently promised to people given the people the Government of Canada statisticians were enumerating.

I try to think of the context of 1901 to 1911 in the prairie provinces where I come from. One million immigrants arrived at the train station at the corner of Portage and Main to begin a new life. I believe that was in 1906 alone. My numbers could be off but we will recognize a massive influx of immigrants, many seeking refuge from persecution in parts of the world where people's privacy was not guaranteed and information was used against them. Many of these people would probably be reluctant to have an official from the government in their new-found country asking very personal questions about them, their background and their history

I would imagine that to get the information we needed to plan the opening of the west, I think government had a right to know who was who, where they were going and their background but one can imagine the reluctance of people to be forthcoming with that information. One can also imagine the guarantees or the promises made to these new Canadians, these immigrants, that they should not worry, that they could trust the government and that any information they gave would be confidential, private and for government use only.

In other words, I can imagine a scenario where those promises were made at pier 21 in Halifax, at the train station at Portage and Main or in Edmonton, whatever the dropping off point was, where individual enumerators, which is what they were called at that time, would ask these questions and then commit, at least sometimes, that the information would be forever secret.

Now that is a contract that we are entering into and we have to be cautious when we break faith with people. At the very least, it would be a breach of trust if not an absolute breaking of a formal contract. Any contract, treaty, compact or agreement, as I say, is in fact binding and time does not wear that down or change it.

My house was built in 1911. I would like to think if I owned that house for another 50 years that nothing would happen to my title on that house, that it would l not expire and somebody would not view that as something that is expendable.

It is a commitment we make and the promise kept, I would think.

The bill has many complexities. It is intended to deal with the census after the one conducted in 1911 and it proposes two things. First, it proposes that the records from census between 1911 and 2001 be released after 92 years. Second, it proposes that records from the 2006 census onward be released if the individual confirms on the census form that his or her personal census information can be made publicly available after 92 years.

That is what the legislation seeks to achieve but some of us still have some fundamental problems with the way Statistics Canada and the Liberal government have been managing census taking in its larger context.

First, I am uncomfortable with the very recent idea that the Government of Canada would contract the record keeping out to an outside third party, and not just any outside third party but the leading American military contractor in the United States, Lockheed Martin, which would be in possession of our confidential census data.

If we are talking about the right to privacy of people from 1901 to 1911, let us think about that in the context of the right to privacy of Canadians who sent us here a lot more recently than that, like last year. Their personal private information would be in the hands of an American firm subject to the patriot act in the United States, where it is more or less like martial law, where one's confidentiality and privacy is non-existent. This concerns me very much and, frankly, any legislation to amend the census legislation and the statistical gathering from the Liberal government concerns me if its commitment to our privacy is so cavalier and shallow that it would risk our personal information being held by an American corporation subject to the patriot act. That is not defending the interests of Canadians very aggressively. I speak to this with an added concern coming from Manitoba.

The Conservative government in Manitoba in the 1990s thought it would be a cost efficient measure to contract out the gathering and the database of the Manitoba health insurance. It believed that it would be a cost efficient measure if it contracted out all my confidential medical records. Well, it did, and a new firm was created and it built a big office building downtown.

Then, because this was the era of corporate mergers, this data collection agency that held all of our confidential health records was sold to an American company, which promptly moved our Manitoba health records to Dallas, Texas. Now, all of my confidential medical information and that of my family and everybody in the province of Manitoba is located and stockpiled in Dallas, Texas, again subject to this patriot act, whereby the confidentiality of Canada's most private information may in fact be compromised and breached.

That is a concern. I would have thought that the current Liberal government of the day would have learned a lesson from what happened in Manitoba. We do not want our confidential information subject to the patriot act and we should be actively taking steps to avoid that. I am a little suspicious when the current Liberal government tells us that “we are in charge of the census and we are here to help”, and when it tells us that it is here to protect us by moving this amendment to the way it gathers statistics and census information, if it is going to subject us to this risk of having our privacy compromised.

I want to speak a little more on the range of options that have been put forward today. We have heard some very good ideas. I think some of them are being aired here for the first time publicly by those who seek to amend this bill. We do not seek to slow down this legislation, but I too am a little suspicious about the lack of priority this bill has been given by the government. I am wondering how committed the government is to solving this longstanding problem we have if it keeps introducing the bill at a stage of Parliament where it consistently dies on the order paper.

Were there the political will to really see this bill through to fruition and royal assent, one would have thought the government of the day would have introduced it a little earlier in this Parliament. Some of us have pretty good reason to believe that when we leave here on June 23 or thereabouts we will not be coming back. An election will be triggered or called sometime prior to the Gomery report being tabled. We might not get a chance to ever deal with this bill at committee. We certainly might never get a chance to get it to third reading or report stage in the House, because the legislative agenda is chock full of things that the government is prioritizing to try to force through whether that is Bill C-38 or the budget bills.

For all that the Liberal government is trying to garner some support by paying lip service to this complicated and thorny issue, it does not seem to me that there is a legitimate commitment to seeing this bill pass the stages necessary to actually give any satisfaction to the statisticians, the genealogists and the historians. It makes me wonder. I guess I could be convinced otherwise, but somebody would have to show me some evidence that there is a legitimate commitment to this bill being passed.

We can look at other jurisdictions. I often find it helpful and useful to look at other jurisdictions that have dealt with a similar problem. I note that in the 2001 Australian census of population and housing about 50% of the respondents chose to have their information released in the future. If in fact this bill were to go through, from 2006 on there would be an optional nature to this. We could check a box and say that we do not mind if 92 years from now some historian wants to look at our personal information. About half of Australians agreed to that. On a similar question in New Zealand, about 60% of the population there indicated on their forms that their information could be released after 100 years.

That gives us an indication of other Commonwealth countries. I think we would probably find about the same reaction here were we to test Canadians. It will be interesting to see what the result will be.

I was here in January of 2003 when the Government of Canada announced that it would need to clarify the Statistics Act to resolve this issue and it released the 1906 special census records.

The 1906 census was taken only in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, I think because of the massive influx of immigration to those provinces in that particular year. I do not have the information here, but if memory serves me that was one of the peak years for the great land rush to open the west. The advertisements went out all over Europe, including eastern Europe, to attract settlement and to open up the west.

As I referred to earlier, most members of Parliament were getting deluged with representations at their offices. It is significant to note that in January 2003, in partial response to the overwhelming interest that had been indicated, only very limited information was released. It is called tombstone information: name, age, address, sex, marital status and origin. There was none of the sensitive information that people may be concerned about, not like our personal medical records, those records of mine in Dallas, Texas.

I think we have found that this was not enough to satisfy most of the researchers, who found themselves without the information they needed. They were still left with great gaps in the history.

With that many people arriving in the prairie provinces that year, we can imagine the number of current residents in the prairie provinces whose lineage and genealogy are interrupted. There is a big gap. They do not really know exactly, I suppose, by census data at least, where their family tree went. They can trace it back easily to that point, but then there is a great interruption. That is what is giving a lot of Canadians cause for concern. There is a legitimate thirst for that knowledge for all of us.

It goes beyond curiosity. When one's people fled persecution in other countries and sought refuge here in Canada, that was a traumatic event in the history of one's family. There is a legitimate appetite for that kind of information. I have heard that since the advent of the Internet, genealogy is one of the fastest growing hobbies, so to speak. People really like being able to do it and obtain that knowledge.

When Bill S-18 makes the censuses after 1911 available after 92 years, it will take an active, informed part in deciding the use of one's own personal information. My point is that Canadians will be taking an active and informed part, because we all have the right to decide for ourselves if our information should be made publicly available in the future. It is a decision. It is a choice we are going to have to make. I will have to give it some thought myself. I do not think I will simply automatically check that box. The erosion of privacy rights is of some concern to me.

The point I would like to end with is that because Canada is a land of immigrants, perhaps our appetite for knowing our history, who we were and where we came from, is even more acute than in other countries where it is not so much the case. In the prairie region, I think it is even more interesting to those of us whose ancestors go back to this great influx, this last great frontier where the massive settlement drives took place.

On behalf of those people in the riding of Winnipeg Centre who want that information and who thirst for that information, I hope that we in the House of Commons can see fit to find a way to balance those competing interests and let that information be accessible. That is my hope. If reasonable heads prevail, and there does appear to be a fair amount of goodwill in the room tonight, so very ably chaired, there is optimism for progress on this contentious issue.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this important bill.

It is very interesting to me that we are having this debate about information that is now over 90 years old. People want access to it for historical and research purposes. Are we going to say no? There seems to be a reason why we need to be careful here.

The reason is that there was a promise made.

There are of course those who claim that census data is to be kept in confidence in perpetuity. The researchers tell us that in fact when the census was taken way back in 1911 there was not an explicit promise to keep this information confidential; it was just sort of assumed. Thus, there was not an explicit promise of confidentiality in perpetuity, they say, so therefore the question of whether or not a promise is being broken here is now considered to be but an academic point and it has been answered in the negative: there is not a breach of this promise.

People are interested in this matter. I have found a considerable amount of interest among people, both in my riding and across the country, since this particular issue has been raised a number of times. There has been no indication from people who have contacted me that they have any questions at all about the release of this information. They want it released.

To my knowledge, I have not had a single presentation to my office from people saying we should not release this data. Those who have contacted my office are unanimous in saying that the census information should be released. I do not know whether this is sufficient to persuade us to go in this direction, but it certainly is a strong indication.

I have some thoughts about this. Most people doing this research are doing so in researching their own roots or sometimes the roots of other family members who are related by marriage or whatever. Usually it is their own roots they are discussing.

I find this curious. If I may, I will go off on a little sidebar for a few milliseconds about the strong desire individuals have to know their lineage, their parentage. They want to know who their mothers, fathers and grandparents are and so on up the line. I have actually heard of people who have traced their lineage back 200 years, which is really quite a curiosity.

Our family has not really made that much effort to do this. We could probably go back about 150 years or so and that is about it, but that is because of the fact that family records are available so we do not need to go to any public records in order to find out who our parents, grandparents and great-grandparents, et cetera, were.

What I am going to say in my little sidebar is to say in parenthesis that the other bill which we are now discussing in the House, Bill C-38, talks about the ability for same sex marriages. It is a foregone conclusion that with this would also come the right to have children by technological means. That is one of the implications. In fact, I personally am aware of at least one instance where, with an anonymous gamete donor, an individual has been brought to life.

This young child is only about a year old now, but when he gets older he will in fact perpetually be denied the right to ever know one-half of his genetic roots. He will know his mother's, but he will not know who his father is because that information presumably is not recorded. It was an anonymous donor. There is no information. That has other biological implications, of course, which I think we should be paying attention to. However, here are individuals who will be in perpetuity denied the right to ever know even who their first generation progenitor is or was.

To come back to Bill S-18, I believe very strongly that we should accommodate the needs and the requests of historians and genealogical researchers in order to access this data. I think the information that is available has to do with familial lines and things like date of birth, place of birth, names of parents, et cetera.

That information certainly should not be embarrassing. As a matter of fact, I think most of us are very proud of who our parents and grandparents are. We share a heritage with them because of their personal history and it is very useful to know what that history is.

One of the things that Bill S-18 provides on the form is a little box for people to check and sign. This is quite an interesting thing. Individuals who will be filling in their census forms after this bill is enacted, presuming that it passes, will see a box and this question: “Are you willing to have the release of this information after 92 years?”

I know that 92 years from now I will not care. I will no longer be here to say that someone should not have said this or that about me. As a matter of fact, I would be ready to check it off to release it tomorrow, I think, at least the information that I divulge, because I have nothing to hide at all.

I have told this story before, probably even in this House. When my wife and I lived in a little town of 200 people, one of my friends asked me how I could stand living in that little town where everybody knew what I was doing. I said that I was not going to do anything bad, so people could know what I was doing. For example, I said, “We went to Calgary and so they know. Goodbye”. I came back later on the same day or the next day. I am not concerned about that kind of confidentiality.

There is an implication here that one has done something one does not want divulged. The census form would presumably have that information. I do not know what kind of information the census people would be justified in receiving that would cause a person to say, “I will not allow the release of this information”. If they are asking questions about something which I do not want released, then I would think the real question should be, “Is our census bureau in this country legitimately asking the right questions?” I think that is a very serious question and an important one.

I have been particularly concerned about this and have had a number of constituents talk to me about it, especially when the last census was taken several years ago. I was concerned about some of the intrusive questions that were asked. People were asked whether the person with whom they were having conjugal relations was of the same gender. There were some people who were quite incensed about that.

They asked what business it was of anybody's. I have to confess that I agree: the government has absolutely no business asking questions of that nature. If the government did not ask that question, then of course there would be no information in the record that would cause the individual to say, “No, I do not want this ever released”.

Nowadays I do not know whether people who are in this--

Civil Marriage Act

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the committee studying Bill C-38 continues to hear from witness after witness that the Liberals' plan to change the definition of marriage will have an impact on basic freedoms in our country.

The minister has finally admitted what the Supreme Court told us months ago, which is that the federal government has no power to fully protect individuals from being attacked because of their beliefs.

Bill C-38 does not protect freedom of religion or freedom of conscience in any way, and the minister knows that.

Why is the minister rushing this bill through the House in spite of clear evidence and his own admission that it will have a negative impact on Canadian rights?

Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present two petitions from literally hundreds of my constituents who have taken the time and effort to make sure they have contacted me to stand up for the traditional definition of marriage as defined by one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

This is part of a growing sentiment among Canadians to protect marriage, to urge their elected representative to do what is right, to represent them in this House and to vote against Bill C-38.

Privilege

[The Speaker]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 and on Thursday, June 2, 2005 by the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell concerning the blocking of fax lines and the registration of Internet domain names of certain members of the House of Commons by individuals or organizations with no affiliation to the House, which the hon. member claimed has prevented them from carrying out their work as parliamentarians

I would like to thank the hon. member for raising this matter. I would also like to thank the hon. deputy House leader of the official opposition and the hon. members for Charlesbourg--Haute-Saint-Charles, British Columbia Southern Interior, Cambridge, and Prince Albert for their interventions on May 31. In addition, I would like to thank the hon. members for Halton, Scarborough--Rouge River, Edmonton--Sherwood Park, Yorkton--Melville, and Elmwood--Transcona for their contributions to the discussion on June 2.

On May 31 the hon. member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell claimed that his right to carry out his duties as a member of Parliament had been interfered with by a group called Focus on the Family Canada which was blocking his and other members' office telephone lines by sending multiple computer-generated faxes.

To illustrate, he indicated that during the course of one day he had received over 800 facsimiles. Only a handful of these faxes had been from constituents, whereas on a normal business day his office would receive an average of 30 to 40 faxes from constituents. He argued that because of this, his constituents had been unable to communicate with him and that he had not had access to notices sent out concerning committee and House business. He further claimed that some of the faxes had been sent by someone who was impersonating a member of Parliament.

In his arguments, the hon. member cited the ruling I had given on a similar matter on February 12, 2003 concerning mass e-mails. He also referred to a judgment handed down in the Ontario Court of Justice by Mr. Justice A.L. Eddy on November 22, 2000 in the case of Her Majesty the Queen against a citizen of Ontario who was found guilty of harassing a member of the Ontario legislature.

In conclusion, the hon. member cited Marleau and Montpetit at page 84 which states that Speakers have consistently ruled that members have the right to carry out their parliamentary duties free from obstruction, intimidation and interference. He asserted that, by interfering with the work of individual members, the organization responsible was in contempt of the House. He indicated that if the Chair found a prima facie case of privilege, he was prepared to move the appropriate motion.

In his intervention, the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles confirmed that his office had also received over 1,000 faxes and 2,300 e-mails in a span of 36 hours, thus monopolizing the tools provided to him as a member of the House, as well as the time of his staff. In addition, he argued that this action was an infringement on the privileges of members of Parliament because they are unable to carry out their parliamentary duties or remain in contact with their constituents

The deputy House leader of the official opposition challenged the claim of harassment, asserting that all Canadian citizens have the right to communicate with all members of Parliament on matters of public interest. He dismissed as absurd the contention that citizens wishing to communicate with members of Parliament on an issue of public moment constituted an attack on anyone. He maintained a logistical solution could be found to the problem and warned against censoring Canadians from communicating with their members of Parliament.

The hon. members for British Columbia Southern Interior, Cambridge, and Prince Albert contributed to the discussion by seeking clarification of certain points raised by the hon. member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell.

On June 2 the hon. member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell rose again to bring to the attention of the Chair that in addition to the communication difficulties he and other members were experiencing as he had described on May 31, an organization called Defend Marriage Coalition had taken over the Internet domain names of approximately 40 to 50 members of Parliament. This, he alleged, was not a legitimate use of the domain names.

He also claimed that in the case of 15 of these sites, this organization not only was using the members' names to access the sites, it had also published information about these members of Parliament. These sites, he alleged, were designed to look like the official websites of the members concerned, of which he also questioned the legitimacy. He contended that this constituted a bona fide case of privilege.

In response, the hon. deputy House leader of the official opposition argued that it was incumbent upon members to register their domain names and that this matter was not within the purview of the House or the Speaker.

The hon. member for Halton, in his intervention, informed the Chair that he was one of the members whose domain name had been taken over by the organization in question and it was using his House of Commons photo on its site, thereby creating the impression that it was his official website. The hon. member for Scarborough--Rouge River wondered if this might be a case of impersonation or identity theft, which would interfere with the duties of the members and the functions of the House.

I want to assure all hon. members that I consider this situation to be very troubling. Allegations of obstruction, interference and misrepresentation should not be taken lightly.

Over the years, members have brought to the attention of the House instances which they believed were attempts to obstruct, impede, interfere, intimidate or molest them, their staffs or individuals who had some business with them or the House. Since these matters relate so closely to the right of the House to the services of its members, they are often considered to be breaches of privilege.

That being said, members of Parliament come into contact with a wide range of individuals and groups during the course of their work and are subject to all manner of influences, some legitimate and some not.

First of all, I wish to address the matter of the blocking of members' fax machines and email systems.

The hon. member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell claimed that he had been obstructed from fulfilling his duties with respect to his constituents because of multiple computer-generated faxes that were preventing them from contacting his office in an expeditious manner. To support his contention, he cited the ruling I gave on February 12, 2003, at pages 3470 and 3471 of the Debates , concerning the disruption a mass emailing from a member's office had on the House's email system. I did not find that there was a prima facie question of privilege, but encouraged hon. members to use alternative means of communication and set in motion administrative changes to rectify the situation.

The hon. member also referred to a decision rendered in a court case before the Ontario Court of Justice in November 2000. I have now had an opportunity to review the particulars of the judgment and wish to share these with you.

In 2000 a resident of Ontario was charged with and found guilty of mischief by wilfully interrupting and interfering with the lawful use and operation of the property of Mr. William Murdoch, a member of the Ontario Legislature, by continually sending numerous lengthy facsimile messages to his Queen's Park and constituency offices.

The judge looked at the broad issue of what were the constraints, if any, on the right of a constituent to contact, consult and relate to his elected member of the provincial Parliament and whether it was open to the court to set reasonable limits.

The judge determined that the faxes were not sent by the accused in any realistic effort to inform and assist the member in carrying out his duties but, rather, they were sent in anger and in frustration in an effort to express his dissatisfaction.

In addition, the judge found that the citizen's actions had the effect of monopolizing the member's fax machines, thereby precluding the ordinary and reasonable use of them by constituents and others, and impeding the member and his staff from carrying out the orderly operation, activity and responsibilities of the member's office.

The judge ruled that the right of a citizen to communicate with a member is not without reasonable limits and that, when a constituent, by his or her actions, affects the ability of others to access and exercise their rights, a boundary has been crossed. The judge found that there is an inherent responsibility on the part of the constituent in his or her dealings to act in a manner that respects others' rights of access.

In the matter raised on May 31, the Chair has examined all the material supplied by the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell and has found only one facsimile attributed to a member of the House. In the absence of any complaint from a member that he or she was or is being impersonated, the Chair will set aside the claim that facsimiles had been received from individuals falsely claiming to be members of this House.

With regard to the second issue raised on May 31, namely, whether or not the hon. member has clearly demonstrated that his constituents have been limited or prevented from contacting him in a reasonable and ordinary fashion, it is evident from its website that Focus on the Family Canada is encouraging Canadians to contact the members of the legislative committee and express their views with regard to Bill C-38.

Unlike the court case referred to by the hon. member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell, where only one individual was involved in a deliberate attempt to obstruct the Ontario MPP, with no intent to inform or influence, dozens or perhaps hundreds of individuals are contacting members as they are free to do. I must ask myself, is the intent of these communications to prevent the members' constituents from contacting them? This is impossible to tell.

While it is clear that large numbers of faxes and emails have been sent to the offices of the hon. member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell, Charlesbourg--Haute-Sainte-Charles and others, and have interfered with the smooth functioning and ordinary routines of those offices, the hon. members and their constituents have still been able to communicate, albeit somewhat erratically, by facsimile and email, as well as by letter post and telephone.

Most certainly, the hon. member does have a grievance, but does it constitute a prima facie contempt of the House? As is pointed out in Marleau and Montpetit, at pages 91 to 95, there are numerous examples of members raising similar, legitimate complaints, but Speakers have regularly concluded that members have not been prevented from performing their parliamentary duties. Therefore, though the work and the offices of certain members may have been slowed, I cannot find a prima facie question of privilege in this regard.

I now wish to deal with the matter raised by the hon. member on June 2 concerning the cyber squatting of members’ domain names and the creation of websites that resemble those of members.

I am very concerned about this situation and the potential negative impact it is having on some members. When this situation was first brought to my attention, I visited the official website of the hon. member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell to see for myself what the problem was. On the website, listed under LINKS, I clicked on the link to the federal party association and up came the cybersquatting site. I worried at the time that this indicated that the hon. member's official site had been tampered with. Had that been the case, I might well have been inclined to find a prima facie case of privilege.

However, I have since learned that the offending link was not the result of some hacker, but that there was a far less sinister explanation. Simply put, the link occurred because the cybersquatters had bought the domain name when the hon. member's ownership of his name lapsed and the link, which predated the change in ownership of the domain name, had not been modified to take account of that change.

As a number of hon. members pointed out on June 2, like many things on the Internet, it may well be that it is impossible to resolve this. As was noted, it is incumbent upon members to register their domain names if they wish to prevent others from registering similar or even identical ones. I would urge all hon. members to take such precautionary measures immediately, for once a member's domain name has fallen into other hands, it is not easy to find a remedy to the situation.

In such cases, it appears to the Chair that hon. members may certainly have a grievance in this situation, and a serious grievance, but I cannot find that members have been prevented in any way from carrying out their parliamentary duties. Therefore, I cannot find that this constitutes a prima facie case of privilege.

The question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell raises important issues in an era where communications technology is ubiquitous and the demand for accessibility grows daily more aggressive. It is, of course, the right of all Canadians to communicate with their members of Parliament, but when does the exercise of the right to communicate with Parliament become unreasonable? What role, if any, should the House take in regulating such communication?

Similarly, with regard to “cybersquatting”, is this a legitimate means of engaging in debate and holding a member accountable in the public square for his or her stand on an issue? Is the inconvenience to the member and the potential confusion in the minds of constituents and citizens irrelevant to that legitimacy? Or ought the House look at safeguarding the Internet identity of its members in the interests of ensuring clear democratic discourse? Or ought this situation simply be left to the forces of the marketplace, leaving members who have not taken steps to protect their domain names to bear the consequences?

In conclusion, it is evidence that the matters raised last week are serious and bear further discussion and examination. It seems clear to the Chair that, given the realities of communication technologies in 2005, members of all parties will doubtless be faced with similar situations in the future. As it happens, Standing Order 108(3)(a)(i) mandates the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which is chaired coincidentally by the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, “to review and report on the provision of services and facilities to Members”.

Accordingly, the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell may well wish to take these matters up with the committee to explore, at a minimum, the ramifications of new communication technologies, including the Internet, as they affect members in the performance of their duties.

I thank all honourable members for their interventions on this very important matter.

Marriage

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is determined to ram through Bill C-38, the legislation that threatens the traditional definition of marriage.

The Liberals have used threats, coercion and intimidation as tools to get the same sex marriage bill into law before the summer recess. They have threatened religious leaders and the tax status of their churches. They have disallowed any member of the cabinet a free vote and threaten punishment if they disobey. They have threatened marriage commissioners with the loss of their jobs if they refuse to marry same sex couples. The Liberals want to ram Bill C-38 through before an election because they know the vast majority of Canadians do not support it.

If they succeed, I promise them that the people of Canada will never forget what they have done in their attempt to destroy the traditional definition of marriage and the voters will send a clear message of their anger to every Liberal candidate who supports same sex marriage.

There will be a price to pay for the Liberals' obsession with Bill C-38 and they may rest assured that the price will be paid at the polls.

Privilege

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, two days ago I rose in the House on a question of privilege to talk about the fact that there had been tampering with electronic equipment in the offices of members of Parliament, namely the telephone systems hooked up to fax lines. Six or seven MPs at least have been affected by this situation. I want to add to this today by bringing the following to the attention of your honour. We now have a situation where people are engaged in what is commonly referred to as cybersquatting. People have now taken over the websites of members of Parliament in much the same way.

We cannot refer to names of MPs in the House, not even one's own, but I bring to the attention of the House that “my name”.ca, which for years has been my website, now appears under the name of an organization calling itself the Defend Marriage Coalition. It instructs people on how to object to my voting in favour of Bill C-38 regarding the definition of civil marriage. It makes disparaging remarks against me as a member of the House and so on.

I also want to draw to the attention of the House that I am not the only member affected. There are some 40 or 50 members of Parliament whose names have been similarly taken over by this organization. I have the list and I am willing to provide it to the Speaker, table it, or both.

Finally, in about 15 such cases of the 50 that I have just enumerated, the members of Parliament are now subject to this actual cybersquatting. In other words, it is not only that the sites have been taken over, and many of them were previously held by the members and were paid for personally and otherwise, but now some of them have already been converted to these right-wing religious organizations.

For instance, the site names of the following members have been taken over by someone else: the hon. member for Durham; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre on the Liberal side; the hon. member for North Vancouver, a Liberal member; and an hon. member of the Conservative Party from South Shore, Nova Scotia.

The point I am making is that our fax lines which we use to communicate with our constituents have been overtaken and plugged up by people. Now our websites have been taken over by cybersquatters. A number of them not only have captured the domain names, but they have published information about members of Parliament, using the member of Parliament's name as access, when in some cases, such as mine, I had personally held that site for years.

The threshold has now increased. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a bona fide case of privilege. I ask that this matter be referred forthwith to the procedure and House affairs committee.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, before I get to the weekly business statement, I said at that time that I would begin to schedule opposition days before the end of May and that is exactly what I have done. There are a number more to schedule.

Today and tomorrow, of course, are allotted days. I also wish to designate next Tuesday and next Thursday as allotted days.

When the budget bills, Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 are reported from committee, they will certainly become our highest priority.

In the meantime, we will proceed with third reading of Bill C-22, the social development bill; report stage and third reading of Bill C-26, the border services legislation; second reading of Bill S-18, respecting the census; and Bill C-52, the Fisheries Act amendment.

We will then turn to report stage and third reading of bills that have been or are soon to be reported from committee. These include Bill C-25 respecting RADARSAT; Bill C-37, the do not call bill; Bill C-28, the food and drug legislation; and Bill C-38, the civil marriage bill. If there is time during the next three weeks, we will also start to debate the legislation that has been introduced during the last few weeks.

National Day Against Homophobia

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today is National Day Against Homophobia, the first time this day has been celebrated outside of Quebec. I therefore stand with pride as a member of a government responsible for removing, within all areas of federal law, discrimination and hate against persons because of their sexual orientation.

One area of discrimination still exists and Bill C-38 would ensure that the legal institution of marriage will be available to same sex couples in Canada. Yet de jure action against discrimination is not enough. We need to ensure that programs are put into place to address de facto discrimination.

In a report released yesterday by West Enders Against Violence Everywhere, 120 Vancouver residents reported that they had been victims of gay bashing. We must redouble our efforts to raise public awareness of the challenges that homosexuals face within their communities and their workplace.

As an MP, I will continue to work for all Canadians to feel welcome and respected in our society regardless of their differences. I urge all to participate actively in an effort to end de facto homophobia.

Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my duty today to present two petitions on Bill C-38. It is interesting to note that one is pro and one is con. It demonstrates that this is a very divisive issue across the country and, unfortunately, rather than uniting Canadians it is dividing them.

Civil Marriage Act

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the previous question at the second reading stage of Bill C-38.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Petitions

[Russ Powers, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the congregants of a church within my riding, I present a petition in support of Bill C-38, the civil marriage act.

Civil Marriage Act

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the flood of petitions and letters to my office over the past six months is any indication, Bill C-38, the same sex marriage bill, is by far the most important bill that will be dealt with by the 38th Parliament.

I have received about five times as much mail on this subject as on any other that I have dealt with in my four years as a member of Parliament. I have received many thousands of signatures on petitions in the constituency. For example, last week I presented nine such petitions to the House, and this week I have a further eight petitions that I am ready to submit. As members can see from the size of this pile, there are many hundreds of signatures on these petitions. As well, of course, I listen to many of my colleagues on all sides of the House presenting one petition after another, which is a very strong indication of the depth of interest expressed by Canadians on this issue.

Another sign of the depth of interest and commitment is the number of letters that are received and that are individual handwritten letters, letters from people who, although they are constituents, are not regular correspondents. People have been moved to write to me on this issue when they have written on no other issue. That is a signal to me of the depth of their interest in and commitment on this issue.

It was my practice in the 37th Parliament, that is, the one that sat from 2000 to 2004, to seek instruction from the electorate in my riding as to how to vote on key legislation via a mechanism that we refer to in the constituency as a constituency referendum.

I have conducted constituency referenda in which I asked constituents, by means of a mail-out ballot to all households in the riding, how to vote at final reading on, among other things, the species at risk act, which was Bill C-5 in the 37th Parliament, and the anti-terrorism act, Bill C-36 in the 37th Parliament. I have asked about whether to opt in or out of the MPs' annual $20,000 pay increase and also about how the riding boundaries of my then riding of Lanark--Carleton ought to be redrawn so that I could submit to the Electoral Boundaries Commission a submission that accurately reflected the community of interest as expressed by my constituents.

My party leader, the Leader of the Opposition, is a democrat, which means a lot to me because I am of course the shadow cabinet critic for democratic reform. He is a democrat. He strongly supports the right of MPs, including members of the shadow cabinet, to vote their consciences or to vote the collective consciences of the people they represent. That is why three members of our shadow cabinet are able to vote for this bill without fear of sanction, reprisal or losing their posts.

This contrasts dramatically with the Liberal benches, where no such freedom is available to members of the cabinet. I am also the critic for FedNor, the federal agency for regional economic development in northern Ontario. My opposite number in the Liberal cabinet, the minister for FedNor, has indicated very strongly that he personally is opposed to same sex marriage and is opposed to this legislation. He has been faced with a choice between resigning his post or abdicating his conscience. Unfortunately, he seems to have chosen to abdicate his responsibility to his conscience in choosing to fall in line with the government.

How many others have done so without at least speaking openly as he has done I do not know, but certainly there is very little in the way of democracy on that side of the House and on something that is the most important issue in the minds of many of the constituents of many of the members opposite, and of course also in the minds of many of the members opposite themselves, as it is in the minds of so many opposition members of Parliament.

The same lack of freedom to follow one's conscience or the conscience of one's constituents is even more evident in the New Democratic Party, where one member, the member for Churchill, in northern Manitoba, has essentially been knuckled under, read the riot act and told she must vote the way her party leader tells her to, without regard for her personal conscience or for the will of her constituents.

As our party's critic on democracy, I am proud of the courageous and democratic position adopted by our leader, but also of the democratic position adopted by our party, the Conservative Party, at its March policy convention in Montreal. I want to read from our policy platform a policy that was adopted in Montreal at our March convention. It states:

On issues of moral conscience, such as abortion, the definition of marriage, and euthanasia, the Conservative Party acknowledges the diversity of deeply held personal convictions among individual Party members and the right of Members of Parliament to adopt positions in consultations with their constituents and to vote freely.

My intention personally has been to vote against this bill at second reading and to conduct a constituency referendum to determine how I should vote at third reading.

At second reading a bill is being approved or rejected in principle. As such, it is the stage of the bill's life where it is most appropriate for a member of Parliament to vote his or her conscience. My conscience dictates that I cannot support a bill that fails to provide adequate protection for religious freedom when such protection could easily have been included in the text of the bill.

I have largely based my political career on the defence of religious freedom. My very first statement in the House of Commons, as a new member of Parliament, was the defence of the freedom of religion of Falun Gong practitioners in mainland China. When I turned to my constituents to ask how to vote on the Anti-terrorism Act and ultimately when I broke ranks with most members of my party, and with the government of course, in order to vote against the bill, I was primarily motivated by the unwarranted restrictions that the bill was placing on freedom of religion which I believe set a very dangerous precedent in this country.

Freedom of religion that is nominally protected in clause 3 of the same sex bill is quite frankly a fictitious protection of freedom of religion. It is a section that Liberal members will cite constantly. Let me read what it says because it is revealing when the text is read. We realize how hollow this protection of freedom of religion really is. Clause 3 of the bill says:

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

There are two things to note about this. First, which my hon. colleague from Okanagan—Coquihalla so clearly identified, this does not take care of all of the other impositions on freedom of religion, of many other actors in society that are not contained within the wording of this section, such as people who serve as commissioners of marriage who find their personal conscience violated.

It would be no great effort to find someone who finds it in accordance with his or her personal conscience to perform a same sex marriage as opposed to leaving it, requiring that all people who are commissioners of marriage must be willing to do so should the condition present itself. That is just unreasonable. It provides no extra rights to a same sex couple, but it takes away a fundamental and profound right to those who find that it is not in accordance with their personal religious or philosophical beliefs.

That provision could be taken care of by provincial law. It cannot be taken care of by federal law, but the federal government could have engaged in negotiation with the provinces to ensure those kinds of protections are built into provincial law. It has made no such effort and in fact is standing by while the opposite starts to happen. There are many other instances that my colleague cited, but I will not go through them all now.

The other thing to note about this clause is that in the draft of the bill, the earlier version that was submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada, an almost identical provision was written into clause 2 of that draft law except that it did not have the wording “it is recognized” at the beginning. Clause 3 states that “It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages--”.

The inclusion of those words makes this a purely declaratory provision. It has no weight whatsoever. It should be up in the very long preamble to the bill because it has no weight in court. The reason it has no weight in court, even written as the original clause 2 of the prior bill was, is because the court said it can have no weight. It is ultra vires; it is outside of federal jurisdiction.

The solemnization of marriage under section 92 of the Constitution is a provincial responsibility. So putting this in the bill is disingenuous. It should not be given any weight. In fact, it should not even be in the text of the bill.

At third reading my intention is to go to my constituents and ask them how I ought to vote. Some people feel there is a contradiction between voting one's conscience and vote consulting one's constituents.

I want to indicate here that I heartily disagree with this bill. People know where I personally stand, particularly on the issue of freedom of religion. However, it would be arrogant of me to suggest to my voters, to my constituents, that on an issue of such great importance my conscience is somehow superior to the consciences of each of the 113,000 people I represent in the House of Commons. That is not the case. I am proud of them. I am proud of the good sense and conscientious, thoughtful and general sentiments that have been expressed over and over again in the hundreds of letters and many petitions that I have received on this subject, and that I have taken many hours to read and review personally.

If all members of Parliament of all parties showed the same good sense, goodwill, openness and respect that my constituents, and the constituents of all members, have shown, this debate would be a much more civilized debate than it has turned out to be so far.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when I previously made remarks relating to this legislation on changing the definition of marriage, I reflected on the philosophical, theological and sociological implications. Today I would like to reflect on the legal implications pretty well exclusively, not to bore any listeners, but the legal assessment of this legislation is very important and it is not getting active consideration through the media nor through admission by government members.

I will reflect on legal documents and legal opinions. There is one particular very comprehensive legal assessment of this legislation by about three dozen legal experts and academic advisers whose whole careers are invested in academic interests related to human rights, religious rights, and charity and constitutional law. This particular document reviewed two constitutional opinions that were provided by the law firm of Lang Michener on the subject of Bill C-38. A number of very specific questions were posed, many of which came from our constituents, people who, either for religious or social reasons, have concerns about this dramatic social change. In fact it is the most dramatic social change definitely in Canada's history, modern and past. This is a very significant sweeping legal and social change. Canadians should be fully apprised of all the implications before they decide if this is a good thing to support or not.

The Liberal government did not want Parliament to decide this, which is where it should be decided. The government slid it over to the Supreme Court, hoping the Supreme Court would absolve it of responsibility in terms of changing the definition. The Supreme Court quite rightly sent it back to Parliament and that is why it is here today.

Let us look at the very specific questions that were submitted for constitutional legal assessment. One question was, did the recent same sex marriage reference opinion of the Supreme Court require Parliament to amend the common law definition of marriage? The answer was no. The Supreme Court did not require it. This is a very important point. The Liberals are going ahead with this, but they cannot hide behind an imperative from the Supreme Court. There was no requirement from the court to make this change.

The next question was, should it be the case that the purpose of the common law definition of marriage rose out of “Christendom”, in fact religious history, as discussed in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the reference? Is it consistent with constitutional precedent for Parliament to nevertheless define marriage as the union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others, so long as the purpose is secular and consistent with the charter? The answer to that is yes, it is consistent. Legislation pertaining to the legal capacity for civil marriage falls within the subject matter of section 91(26) of the Constitution Act. That addressed the exclusive legislative competence of Parliament.

The next question was, would Parliament be acting consistent with jurisprudence if it justified a statutory definition of marriage of one man and one woman on the basis that it would serve the best interests of children? Was that an actual constitutional matter of jurisprudence? Could it be justified to look at this from the point of view of the best interests of children, and to create a public institution that makes it more likely that a child will be raised by the child's mother and father? That is the specific question referenced. The answer to that is also yes. The Supreme Court has previously recognized the importance of protecting the best interests of children in a variety of contexts, so it is a justifiable consideration.

The next question was, should Bill C-38 be enacted as proposed? Does Parliament have the constitutional jurisdiction to protect by statute the freedom of religious groups or officials to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with the groups' religious beliefs? There is the constitutional question on the religious question.

If Bill C-38 passes, can Parliament protect the religious freedoms of those who, for religious reasons, do not want to perform ceremonies or things like that? In fact, the answer to that is no. This Parliament does not have the jurisdiction under section 92(12) of the Constitution to have exclusive jurisdiction to protect religious freedoms should this legislation pass. That answer is no. Members opposite need to know that.

Another question was this one. If Bill C-38 is enacted, could religious groups or officials who refuse to solemnize a marriage become the subject of action by others? If, for religious reasons or just reasons of conviction, justices of the peace or marriage commissioners say no, they do not want to do a marriage, could they wind up getting sued? The answer to that is yes: “A putative same-sex spouse who is refused a marriage licence or a place to hold a wedding would have a variety of options to assert his/her rights”.

The next question was, does Parliament have the power through Bill C-38 to protect religious groups or officials from the actions referred to above? Could churches be protected by Parliament? Does Parliament have the power to protect them should Bill C-38 pass? The answer is no. We need to be honest about that.The Liberals need to be honest about that. If we are moving into this brave new world, we need to understand what it is going to look like. The answer is: “Parliament cannot protect religious groups or officials from the actions referred to above”.

The three dozen or so constitutional lawyers and other experts in this field then gave legal advice. They stated:

--if passed, Bill C-38 will be used by provincial governments and others to override the rights of conscience and religion of ordinary Canadians. Public officials will in all likelihood lose their employment simply because of their conscientious convictions. It is our view that your constituents, including religious groups and the members of religious groups, will face expensive and ruinous lawsuits if Bill C-38 becomes law.

I wish the government and the Minister of Justice would address these legal and constitutional arguments, but they refuse to. They want Canadians to go blindly into their brave new world, but it is not wise for a society to move blindly in any direction.

Some will say that these are scare tactics, that this type of thing will never happen in Canada, but in fact, even before the law has been enacted--we hope it will not be and that is why we are speaking against it--these things are already happening. Provincial governments in Canada have terminated the positions of marriage commissioners who have, for personal religious convictions, not performed same sex marriages. It has happened in Saskatchewan.

I believe in freedom of speech, but I believe we should also have the right to comment on freedom of speech. A chilling editorial in the Globe and Mail , which is supposed to be one of the bastions of freedom of expression, on January 7, 2005, urged provinces to fire any marriage commissioners who refused to perform same sex marriages. That is incredible coming from something that purports to be a national newspaper. It has the right to say that, and I am not saying it does not, but we certainly have the right to respond.

Bishop Frederick Henry of Calgary is facing at least two official objections to his public statements along with expensive hearings before the Alberta Human Rights Commission for expressing his biblical views on same sex marriage.

I have engaged in debates where people who do not believe in marriage have said they think marriage is a terrible thing. They think it is awful. I have participated in debates where people have said they think marriage is one of the most fearsome and loathsome institutions there is. I disagree with that, but they have a right to say it, and Bishop Henry and others also have the right to say that marriage should be maintained.

On April 4, 2005, the Quesnel School District suspended school counsellor Dr. Chris Kempling. He had been employed as a counsellor in the school system. He had, under the name of his political party, written a letter to the editor of a local newspaper criticizing the Liberal government's position on same sex marriage. He was suspended and has faced many expensive legal proceedings since then.

These things will happen, but they are happening even now, before this legislation has passed.

I am curious when I hear people say that we should not have this discussion because it is “divisive”. There is a reaction among some people in the academic, media and political communities who say that if anything is divisive we should not talk about it. They say that Canadians cannot handle division or divisive items, that we are just quiet little people who do not want to be upset by someone's different point of view.

That is not our history. Our history is that we can very aggressively, if necessary, and openly and democratically discuss our differences. We have a democratic history in which we come together and vote on these things.

I have maintained some legal positions today. My previous speech, for those who would like to consult it, deals with the philosophical, religious and sociological effects of the change in this definition. It is a brave new world, one that I do not think most Canadians, when they fully understand its implications, will want.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I, like most of my colleagues on this side of the House and many on the other side of the House as well, believe in the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Many or most Canadians feel the same way. The number of petitions presented in the House and the number of letters and e-mails we have all received show this to be true.

There is no doubt that there are sincere and deeply held feelings on both sides of this issue. There is also no doubt that the majority of Canadians are looking for a middle ground compromise that would recognize the valid concerns of the partisans on either side. This is the type of country Canada is and the type of goodwill the people of Canada do usually show.

In the course of this debate those of us who support marriage have been told that to amend this legislation to reflect the traditional definition of marriage would be a violation of human rights and an unconstitutional violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I believe that this is an attempt by the government to shift the grounds of this debate. It does not want to debate the question of the traditional definition of marriage versus same sex marriage so it would rather focus on attacking its opponents as opposing human rights and the charter. This is not the middle ground. This is partisan divisive politics.

However this debate is not about human rights. It is a political, social policy decision and should be treated in that light.

The citizens of Elgin--Middlesex--London during the last election chose me to come to this place and help make the laws of the land. Many during the election talked openly about not allowing unelected court judges to become the lawmakers. That duty is ours and we should endeavour to do it to the best of our ability.

Let me present several reasons why the issue of same sex marriage is not a human rights issue and why defining the traditional definition of marriage would not violate the charter or require the use of the notwithstanding clause.

First, as has been said in the House, no internationally recognized human rights document has ever suggested that there is a right to same sex marriage. For example, almost all the rights listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the foundation of the United Nations human rights charter, are worded as purely individual rights, rights which everyone shall have or no one shall be denied. However, when it comes to marriage, the declaration says:

Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.

The use of the term “men and women” rather than “everyone” suggests that only traditional opposite sex marriage is contemplated. The subsequent international covenant on civil and political rights contains similar language.

Many attempts to pursue same sex marriage as an international human rights issue have failed. In fact, to this date no international human rights body nor national supreme court has ever found that there is a human right to same sex marriage.

Therefore, if same sex marriage is not a basic human right in the sense of internationally recognized human rights law, is it a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

We still have not heard from the highest court in this land. In the same sex reference case, the Supreme Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of the traditional definition of marriage despite a clear request from the government to answer this question.

This leads me back to our purpose here. It is with us, 308 free thinking and free voting members of the House, that the definition of marriage awaits defining. Even the Supreme Court sent it back here to be done. There is good reason to believe that the Supreme Court, if it were eventually asked to rule on a new statutory definition of marriage combined with a full and equal recognition of legal rights and benefits for same sex couples, might well accept it.

The Conservative position that the use of the notwithstanding clause is not required to legislate a traditional definition of marriage is supported by law professor Alan Brudner of the University of Toronto, who recently wrote in the Globe and Mail that:

--the judicially declared unconstitutionality of the common law definition of marriage does not entail the unconstitutionality of parliamentary legislation affirming the same definition.

The professor also argues against those who have argued that a pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause is the only way to uphold the traditional definition of marriage. He stated:

These arguments misconceive the role of a notwithstanding clause in a constitutional democracy. Certainly, that role cannot be to protect laws suspected of being unconstitutional against judicial scrutiny...Rather, the legitimate role of a notwithstanding clause...is to provide a democratic veto over a judicial declaration of invalidity, where the court's reasoning discloses a failure to defer to the parliamentary body on a question of political discretion....

In other words, let this body make the decision and the court will deal with it.

The notwithstanding clause should be invoked by Parliament only after the Supreme Court has ruled on the constitutionality of a law. As yet there has been no such law for the Supreme Court to consider, so there is no need to use the notwithstanding clause.

There is every reason to believe that if this House moved to bring in a reasonable, democratic compromise solution, one which defined in statute that marriage remains the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, while extending equal rights and benefits to couples living in other forms of unions, and which fully protected the freedom of religion to the extent possible under federal law, that the Supreme Court of Canada would honour such a decision by Parliament.

This leads us back to where most Canadians want us: at a compromise solution to this question, to a place we can all arrive at in agreement, not in an uncompromising, uncompassionate line in the sand that has no room for discussion.

This House, including the current Prime Minister, voted to uphold the definition of marriage in 1999 and in the amendments to Bill C-23 in 2000, with the Deputy Prime Minister, who was then the justice minister, leading the defence of marriage from the government side.

In 1999 the Deputy Prime Minister said:

We on this side agree that the institution of marriage is a central and important institution in the lives of many Canadians. It plays an important part in all societies worldwide, second only to the fundamental importance of family to all of us.

She also said:

The definition of marriage, which has been consistently applied in Canada, comes from an 1866 British case which holds that marriage is “the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”. That case and that definition are considered clear law by ordinary Canadians, by academics and by the courts. The courts have upheld the constitutionality of that definition.

She also said:

Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages.

Marriage has fundamental value and importance to Canadians and we do not believe on this side of the House that importance and value is in any way threatened or undermined by others seeking to have their long term relationships recognized. I support the motion for maintaining the clear legal definition of marriage in Canada as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

That was the Deputy Prime Minister, speaking as justice minister, less than six years ago. Nothing that she said then is out of date today.

The Supreme Court itself has still not addressed this issue despite a clear request to do so by the government.

We do not believe on the basis of provincial court decisions, which the government refused to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, that a fundamental, centuries' old institution should be abolished or radically changed.

We believe that marriage should continue to be what it has always been, what the courts and the government accepted it to be until a very few years ago: an institution which, by its nature, is heterosexual and has as one of its main purposes the procreation and nurturing of children in the care of a mother and a father.

In conclusion, I will not be supporting Bill C-38.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against the Liberal government's same sex marriage bill, Bill C-38.

Renowned expert Eugene Meehan, a former national president of the Canadian Bar Association and former executive legal officer of the Supreme Court of Canada, has ruled in a legal opinion: first, that Canada's highest court has not required Parliament to amend the traditional definition of marriage, as many Liberal MPs have indicated; second, that gay marriage has not receive protection under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and third, that the federal government has no power to protect from human rights complaints religious officials who do not want to perform gay marriages, as such powers rest with the provinces.

In my speech today, I will give a brief summary of what was determined by this esteemed expert, Mr. Eugene Meehan, and what the Leader of the Opposition as prime minister with a Conservative government would do with this important issue.

The first question Mr. Meehan answered was this. Would the Parliament of Canada be acting consistently with the same sex marriage reference opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada if it were to enact the statutory definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others?

To answer this, he broke the question down into three separate questions, A, B and C.

Question A is: Does the reference require Parliament to amend the common law traditional definition of marriage, as many of the Liberal MPs have in fact claimed? His answer is, no. The answers provided in a federal reference are an advisory opinion only to the governor in council, or in other words, to the government. In addition, in the reference, the Supreme Court did not address the question of whether an opposite sex definition of marriage would fail to meet charter requirements.

He said that the same sex marriage reference did not require Parliament to amend the common law definition of marriage for the following reasons. First, the Supreme Court has recognized that answers provided in a federal reference are by nature advisory only. Second, the federal government took the position before the Supreme Court of Canada in the same sex marriage reference that it was not bound by the court's answers. Third, the Supreme Court did not address the question of whether an opposite sex definition of marriage would fail to meet the charter requirements. Fourth, ultimately the decision of whether to follow or not a reference opinion is political, not legal.

Question B is: Should it be the case that the purpose of the common law definition of marriage arose out of Christendom, is it consistent with the constitutional precedent for the Parliament of Canada to nevertheless define marriage as the union of one man and one woman for life, to the exclusion of all others, so long as the purpose is secular and consistent with section 1 of the charter?

Mr. Meehan's answer is, yes. Legislation pertaining to the legal capacity for civil marriage falls within the subject matter of section 91.26 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which pertains to the exclusive legislative competence of Parliament.

As we know, traditional marriage is supported by all of the world's main religions and by non-religious people as well.

Question C is: Would Parliament be acting consistent with jurisprudence if it determined that for the test under section 1 of the charter, the purpose of the restriction of the statutory definition of marriage to one man and one woman is exclusively to serve the best interests of children and to create a public institution that makes it more likely that a child will be raised by the child's own mother and father?

The answer to question C is, yes. The Supreme Court has previously recognized the importance of protecting the best interests of children in a variety of contexts.

It is therefore constitutionally possible that a law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, specifically promulgated with the secular objective of the best interests of the children, could be perceived by the courts as a pressing and substantial objective.

In light of the fact that under section 1 charter analysis it is the government that has the evidential burden, proof would need to be tendered as to why and how a restrictive marriage definition is required to protect children in Canadian society and how it advances the well-being of the interests of children generally.

If the new federal act included assurances that despite a restrictive statutory definition of marriage for purposes of federal law, all rights, benefits and privileges accruing to the opposite sex couples in marriage would apply equally and without discrimination to those in same sex relationships, this could augment the constitutional chances of new legislation withstanding a charter challenge.

I wish to note that this is exactly what the Conservative Party of Canada and what a Conservative government will do, but I will discuss that later.

The second question that the Lang Michener letter reviews is Meehan's opinion on the religious freedom concerns that will likely flow from the enactment of Bill C-38 should it pass. The main question was: What religious freedom issues would Canadians face should Bill C-38 be enacted as proposed?

Mr. Meehan broke the question into three parts, which were A, B and C.

Question A: Does the Parliament of Canada have the constitutional jurisdiction to protect by statute the freedom of religious groups or officials to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with the group's religious beliefs? His answer, in his legal opinion, was no. He said that provincial governments, pursuant to section 92(12) of the Constitution Act, 1867, had exclusive jurisdiction with respect to the solemnization of marriage.

Question B: If Bill C-38 is enacted could religious groups or officials who refuse to solemnize a marriage become the subject of actions by others? His answer was yes. He said that a punitive same sex spouse who is refused a marriage licence or a place to hold a wedding would have a variety of options to assert his or her rights. I would like to note that this has already happened, so it is not at all a hypothetical question.

Question C: Does the Parliament of Canada have the power, through Bill C-38 or otherwise, to protect religious groups or officials from the actions referred to above? His answer was no. He said that the Parliament of Canada cannot protect religious groups or officials from the actions referred to above because the solemnization of marriage lies within the exclusive competence of the provinces.

Therefore the claims made by the government in that regard simply are not true.

This legal opinion, which was delivered by Mr. Meehan, an esteemed expert, is supported by 35 legal counsels who maintain active practices or academic interest in litigation, human rights, religious, charity or constitutional law.

It is clear, therefore, that only the federal government can legislate a definition of marriage for the entire country. The Leader of the Opposition has indicated that as Prime Minister he will do so. That definition will be the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Our legislation would also maintain and protect in law the rights, benefits, obligations and responsibilities of other types of unions.

The Leader of the Opposition intends to protect the traditional definition of marriage while equally recognizing other types of unions. This is a reasonable compromise position that most Canadians support. Why do the Liberals refuse to support our actions and our proposals in this regard when they know that a majority of Canadians support this position?

The fact is the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party want to change the definition of marriage and they are out of step with Canadians on this issue.They want to shift the discussion to the debate about rights and the courts because they know their position on the definition of marriage itself is not consistent with the views of Canadians.

Like the bill before the House today, our legislation will be subject to a free vote by all members of the Conservative caucus. I sincerely hope that the other parties in the House will recognize that each member of Parliament should represent their constituents on this important issue. No party, except the Conservatives, is allowing a free vote on this issue in the House.

I will continue to stand and fight for marriage, for the family, and for a strong and healthy society. I will help defeat the government and the same sex marriage bill.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to have the opportunity to enter into the debate on Bill C-38 on behalf of the constituents of Macleod. In this time of political uncertainty I am proud to be a member of a political party that respects rights and traditions and encourages honest, public policy debates.

Over the past weeks I have listened to the initial debate on Bill C-38 but, most important, I have listened to my constituents in Claresholm, Okotoks, Vulcan, Granum, Nanton, Turner Valley, Fort Macleod, the Crowsnest Pass and other communities throughout the riding. I am impressed by the honesty, candour and passion which Canadians are approaching the debate. Canadians have been thoughtful on this issue and most have come to believe that Bill C-38 is not the right approach to address the issue of marriage.

Opposing Bill C-38 is not about denying rights. It is not about jeopardizing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as the Prime Minister would like us to believe. It is a complex public policy issue and one that would have an impact on every Canadian.

I, like most of my colleagues on this side of the House, and many on the other side as well, believe in the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

However, in the course of this debate, those of us who support marriage have been told that to amend the bill to reflect the traditional definition of marriage would be a violation of human rights and an unconstitutional violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I believe that this is an attempt by the Liberals to turn the channel and call those who do not agree with them to be un-Canadian. The Prime Minister does not want to debate the question of traditional marriage versus same sex marriage so he would rather focus on attacking their opponents as opposing human rights and the charter.

The Bill C-38 debate is about rights and recognition and about how to best balance the rights of homosexual couples within our society while at the same time upholding and respecting institutions that have great social importance to Canada, such as the traditional definition of marriage. In short, it is about responding and respecting the competing interests in this debate in a reasonable and compassionate way.

Much of the concern about the legislation comes from the Supreme Court decision released on December 9, 2004. The Supreme Court said that the federal government has the jurisdiction to redefine marriage to include same sex couples. It also said that churches are protected under the Charter of Rights in maintaining the traditional definition of marriage but that legislation would specifically protect religious organizations beyond the constitutional power of the federal government.

What this means is that the federal government determines the definition of marriage but the provinces determine how to marry a couple.

The court did not answer the question of whether the traditional definition of marriage in the common law violates the Charter of Rights. Instead of declaring the traditional definition of marriage unconstitutional, the court has made it clear that it is Parliament that must define the word marriage.

It is Parliament's job to find a consensus that defends rights and, specifically in this debate, offers recognition to homosexual couples and takes into account the views of Canadians.

This is where we are today. We have received direction from the Supreme Court of Canada that if Parliament wants to change the definition of marriage it would be within our purview to do so. We are free to define it as a union between a man and a woman or as between any two persons. Either definition has been deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court.

The rights issues has been settled and the equality provisions continue to be settled. Simply put, the law already sees heterosexual relationships and same sex relationships as equally significant and equally able to access spousal rights and privileges. The Conservative Party supports this view. Same sex marriage, in a nutshell, is a recognition issue.

As stated earlier, the rights component of this debate has largely been resolved and few Canadians are of the mind to reverse those decisions. Their opinion reflects their belief of equality for all Canadians under the law. They merely want the definition of marriage to remain as the union between a man and a woman.

Because of the difficulty of this issue, I am proud to be a member of a party that has allowed a free vote on this issue. It is an issue of accountability to my constituents and it is important that members are granted the ability to vote in as free a manner as possible, without the threat of recrimination by party leaders. Nobody in the Conservative Party finds themselves in an uncomfortable position due to this legislation. Members are accountable, not to their party, but to their own consciences and their constituents. It is the position that I wish all members of this House could share.

Importantly, the majority of people who oppose this legislation favour the insurance and the protection of equal rights for homosexual couples. At some point we have to ask ourselves, why is the government not following the lead of most Canadians and searching for a middle ground that would recognize marriage as the union between a man and a woman while recognizing homosexual unions? The Liberal government, after all, likes to talk about Canada's ability to broker resolutions and likes to talk about Canadians as being the sort of people who search for balance and fairness.

In December the Leader of the Opposition announced three proposals for effectively considering the marriage question. These are as follows: the first proposal would retain the traditional definition of marriage; the second proposal would ensure that same sex couples are afforded equal spousal benefits; and the third proposal would include substantive provisions in the legislation to protect not only religious organizations but also to protect public officials who have objections due to reasons of religion or conscience.

With regard to the first proposal, I am proud to be voting the wishes of my constituents, one of which is to support and maintain the traditional definition of marriage.

My constituents reflect the majority of Canadians who believe we do not need to change the definition of marriage and a balanced approach can assure equal benefits and status to same sex couples in a recognized union.

With regard to the third proposal, by protecting the rights of religious institutions, Parliament could support the rights of churches, mosques, synagogues and temples to recognize, perform and solemnize marriages on their own terms.

Parliament must ensure that churches have the right to privately and publicly preach their beliefs related to marriage.

Parliament must ensure that justices of the peace and civil marriage commissioners are not forced to solemnize marriages against their own consciences.

Parliament must also preserve the charitable and economic benefits that churches enjoy as public institutions and recognize the right of public officials to act in accordance with their own beliefs.

During this debate, the Liberals have attempted to hide their politics by invoking the language of rights and accusing our party of not believing in rights. This could not be further from the truth. The Conservative Party has approached this issue as one where a reasonable compromise can be found. We have spoken honestly with Canadians, and it is my hope that the House follows our lead.

I am proud to work with my constituents on such an important issue. I am proud that I can vote freely on their behalf against Bill C-38.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak for the second time in this important debate on Bill C-38, the legislation to change the traditional definition of marriage to include same sex relationships.

As we all well know, this is a very difficult and, to some extent, emotional issue that has split the population of Canada more or less fifty-fifty, or perhaps pretty much along those lines, on whether to change the definition of marriage.

Unfortunately, as we know, there has been some disrespect and extreme comments or behaviour from some people, and I would emphasize in a minority of situations, on both sides of this argument.

A number of MPs have stood to defend the traditional definition of marriage. It does not matter what party we are in because this is an issue that transcends party lines. It is much bigger than partisan politics for me. I have spoken to other colleagues on all sides of the House who relate to the fact that they may have had the insult hurled at them from time to time that somehow they are homophobic or against gay and lesbian people if they defend the traditional definition of marriage.

That is a very unfair and unfortunate accusation to make. I have received that only a few times, fortunately, but I have had that accusation made to me. I would like to address that.

In June 1995, I supported Bill C-41, the so-called hate crimes legislation that added sexual orientation to the list of offences or reasons for violent crime. If a person committed a violent crime against someone because of his or her sexual orientation and if that person was found guilty it would be factored into the sentence.

I supported that legislation. I know for a fact, as all members do, that sometimes, unfortunately, in this country people are targeted for violence or intimidation because of their sexual orientation, if they are gay or lesbian. It is appalling to me as a Canadian and appalling to most Canadians of goodwill. That is why I supported the change in the hate crime legislation which would factor that into a violent criminal assault.

No one at that time called me homophobic. However, now, because some members are defending the traditional definition of marriage, somehow, in some people's minds, we become homophobic.

It is an unfortunate accusation to make. It is simply inaccurate in most cases. I believe most Canadians are not homophobic. They do know that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. It is in no way anti-gay or anti-lesbian to take that position. Unfortunately, people on our side of the argument have made homophobic comments and that is regrettable. However I am happy to say that in most cases we have heard very little of that, which is the way it should be.

If I am not opposed to Bill C-38 because I am somehow homophobic or I am against gay or lesbian people, then why am I vehemently and repeatedly speaking out against the bill and unable in good conscience to support the bill?

I sat on the justice committee from January to June 2003 when there were extensive hearings held on this very topic. I listened to expert witness after expert witness warn against the possible and probable negative consequences to marriage, to the family and to Canadian society if we were to give in to the gay and lesbian lobby that is driving this agenda in the courts.

Some of the most eloquent spokespersons against changing the definition of marriage were themselves gay and lesbian people. In my earlier 20 minute speech I mentioned an expert in this area, a gay Yale professor, William Eskridge, who argues eloquently against changing the definition of marriage.

John McKellar, who was an outstanding witness in committee, is an openly gay man and a founder of an organization called HOPE, Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism. He argued very forcefully and eloquently that we should not change federal and provincial laws just to meet the demands of a small segment of the gay and lesbian population of Canada because not all gay and lesbian people of Canada are demanding that we somehow make marriage into something it is not, never has been and truly never can be, which is a relationship between two people of the same sex.

I would like to share the reactions of my constituents in London—Fanshawe because I have sought their opinions on this issue a number of times. As all members can relate to this, whether I have sought it or not, on a daily basis they give me their opinions in various forms on a constant basis.

In my riding of London—Fanshawe, 92% of my constituents who have taken the time to express their opinions strongly oppose changing the definition of marriage. I live in London, Ontario, which is an urban centre. People have the misconception that it is only in the rural part of Canada but that is wrong. Canadians from coast to coast to coast, of every political stripe and no particular political stripe, of every major faith and of no particular faith, Canadians in the millions oppose changing the definition of marriage for very sound and solid reasons. The constituents of London—Fanshawe are proof of that as 92% oppose changing the definition of marriage.

Having said that, some 60% of my constituents feel that whether they agree with a same sex relationship or not, it is their personal judgment and not their business that some people choose to live their lives that way. Some 60% of my constituents have made it clear to me that they would support some form of recognition in law of same sex relationships. However they do not support changing the definition of marriage and throwing out all the values to make marriage into something that it was never meant to be.

I think my riding is a pretty good sample of the feeling of Canadians in general. The polls are pretty clear that the majority of Canadians do not support changing the definition of marriage but that they do support some sort of recognition in law that same sex relationships exist in society and that they should have some recognition in law with an appropriate name, if we have to find a label, such as civil union or whatever, but certainly not to somehow threaten the future of marriage by changing the definition and setting into motion a series of very probable negative consequences, not that I say will follow, but that experts after experts in this area have predicted will follow if we take this course of action.

We know that eventually the bill will get to a legislative committee. I was pleased recently to get the assurance of the right hon. Prime Minister that he will do everything he can to encourage some public hearings on Bill C-38. Why is that important? I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, because I understand you will be chairing that particular committee.

The justice committee held extensive hearings from January to June, at which many excellent and expert witnesses on both sides of the argument appeared. What the committee did not do is finish its work. It was totally pre-empted by the Ontario Court of Appeal with its ridiculous ruling that instantly sought to redefine marriage in Ontario. That committee never reported. I think that evidence is too important to be lost. It is still on the record of course. It could be referenced by the legislative committee and the legislative committee ought to hold public hearings that would allow, if not individuals, at least important Canadian organizations the opportunity to have input.

I oppose Bill C-38 as a simple matter of conscience. I cannot support changing the definition of marriage under any circumstances whatsoever. It does not mean that I am homophobic or that I am against gay and lesbian people. My voting record shows that I have supported actions to protect their individual rights, such as Bill C-41 in June 1995.

It is a far cry from doing that and saying that I will be silent as we deconstruct marriage and open up the threat to marriage and the family. I cannot do that and I will never do that.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to again join the debate on Bill C-38 on behalf of the residents of Niagara West--Glanbrook. As I have noted previously, the constituents of my riding have made it abundantly clear that they are against this radical change in the definition of marriage, which the Prime Minister wants to leave behind as his legacy.

Briefly I want to remind members of this Parliament, and particularly those who feel forced to support Bill C-38 or lose their cabinet posts, of how strongly Canadians feel about this issue. When was the last time, if ever, that their constituency offices or Ottawa offices received feedback from more than 10,000 people on a single issue? That has been the case in Niagara West--Glanbrook, with 90% of my constituents supporting the position that the definition of marriage must be maintained as being exclusively between one man and one woman.

Some might think that this debate is only for adults and that kids are not engaged. Let me tell the House about one of my young constituents. High school student Nalini Ramaden was so concerned about this issue that she had petitions filled out at her high school and had them delivered to my office here in Ottawa. I want to thank her for that.

I have been accused by some of being biased in favour of protecting the traditional definition of marriage, and yes, I am. I have always been upfront and transparent about my views. During the election I told voters that my intention was to maintain the institution of marriage as we know it. I asked for their support and they gave me their support. They recently reiterated their objections to Bill C-38 by contacting my office in massive numbers. I am listening to my constituents. I am acting on their directions by voting against this legislation.

I will ask members of cabinet again. Are they doing the same for their constituents or are their first loyalties to the Prime Minister's Office?

It is because of this flip-flopping back and forth on issues that trust and confidence in politicians are reduced. When members of Parliament say one thing between elections and then do another, it confuses constituents. When they write letters in support of marriage and then do not bring it up as an issue in an election, constituents are left to believe that these individuals still support it.

I believe that confidence and trust in politicians are very low these days. I recently received a letter from a constituent who only half-jokingly suggested that we need a police force to protect Canadians from politicians. It is truly sad that all politicians are being painted with the same brush, but the only way to change this is through consistently transparent and responsive decision making.

Monumental changes to fundamental pillars of our society cannot be made lightly. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the government is doing with Bill C-38. I urge members of the government to take a step in the right direction and restore confidence in Parliament by demonstrating accountability to voters. Shelving this legislation until Canadians are truly consulted would show the level of respect that our nation demands.

It is with tremendous respect for the residents of Niagara West--Glanbrook, who I am privileged to represent, that I will be voting against this legislation.

Petitions

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was asked by some constituents in my riding of Timmins—James Bay to present this petition opposing government legislation Bill C-38. As they are my constituents and it is their will that I present this petition, I am bringing it forward today.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to present two petitions.

The first one is against Bill C-38, on same sex marriage.

Committees of the House

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, ostensibly this is about the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. The report recommends to the government that the RCMP keep open nine detachments in the province of Quebec. These closings were an issue in hearings before that committee. The report urges the government, presumably, to provide the resources to the RCMP to allow those detachments to remain open.

It is interesting. If we check it out, the sixth report is a reminder to the government that it has done nothing about the fourth report. Members can draw their own conclusions about how serious the government is. It is curious that a government member has brought forward, in the matter of two separate reports, this concurrence motion.

Unless anyone is confused as to why this is taking place, the reason is very simple. The member for Brome—Missisquoi said that he wanted a democratic debate. He only recently has come to this conversion that this is an important item. I can tell members what is really going on here. The Liberals are trying to stall the concurrence motion of the member for Prince George—Peace River, which is a non-confidence motion in the government. According to the rules, we can only have one concurrence motion a day. By moving these concurrence motions each day and by talking more about these things, the longer it will be before they get to the motion of non-confidence in the government. Despite efforts by the government to forestall this and its new partner in marriage, the NDP, the day will come when this chamber will get to decide on these things. It is all about that.

With respect to the report, I am pleased to talk a bit about the whole question of government resources, specifically as it relates to the RCMP. It is a question of money, resources and commitment by the government and its partner in marriage as to what and how government money should be spent.

I believe it should be spent on things like the RCMP. This is a worthwhile expenditure. I want to see not less effort directed by Parliament but more effort directed toward the RCMP and other security agencies in the country. I would be very upset if there were any plan by the government to close the RCMP detachment in my riding, the region of Niagara. I have said for some time and I have urged the Deputy Prime Minister to spend more time and effort in the area of security, not less. There should be quite a bit more. I would be among those who are concerned with this.

I can understand when hon. members say that it is going in the opposite direction. That is not where the world is going. The world has become a much more dangerous place and we need security more than we needed 10 years ago. It seems to me this is a step in the wrong direction.

I have made the suggestion to the Deputy Prime Minister and I urge her to have a look at the whole question of security. In my case and across the country, it is a question of our borders. We are not doing enough. If we sit down with employees at the borders or if we sit down with police forces across the country, they will tell us the same thing. They would like to see a higher level of commitment at the national level. However, that is not happening and this report draws attention to that.

What makes me feel very bad about this is we still do not see any remedy to this coming from the government or its partner in marriage, the NDP. Indeed, a member of the press asked me this morning about the NDP budget and I said that I had not seen it. In fact, we have had very few details of the whole marriage between the NDP and the Liberals. I suppose we can leave it to our imagination as to what took place between the two of them.

One of my colleagues said that the marriage would have been conducted according to Bill C-38. I guess that goes without saying. I was not there. I have not heard the reports. I suppose Bob Rae was there to give away the bride to make it complete. I have no doubt that there would have been lots of toasts, besides the obligatory toasts to Socialist International. I suppose every toast was about more spending. All the toasts would have been about more spending.

However, in all that spending was there any money or any talk of more money for security or the RCMP? I would bet there was not. My bet is that in all those toasts there would not be any money.

I have no doubt that all the toasts would have been using foreign wine. I know those two parties do not care about the Canadian wine industry. In all the billions of dollars that the government has spent I have not seen one mention that it will go ahead and remove the excise tax for the Canadian wine industry. That would not be a huge amount in terms of the money that gets blown. There would be no mention of that.

I imagine that at the marriage of the two parties all foreign wine would have been used. Obviously they do not care about Canadian wine, as they do not care about a lot of issues. The question of security is just another example.

This is disappointing to me. It seems to me that when the government and its partners do not concentrate on security for this country or worry about where the money is being spent, then if the money is being blown, wasted or disappears into the black hole of corruption, there is no money for the important things in this country such as security.

I ask the two partners in this alliance to wake up to some of these things and re-evaluate where they are going. They must call to account the kind of corruption that takes place and recognize that billions of dollars were wasted or blown by this government.

The government wasted $2 billion on the firearms registry alone. When the government and the NDP got together, did anyone say that the gun registry would be a great way to save money? Did they recognize that they had lost money? Imagine what $2 billion could have done for the RCMP detachments across this country. They could have surely used that money. That $2 billion would be a tremendous help in my riding of Niagara Falls for security issues. That money is never spent on security.

Mr. Ouellet had $2 million worth of entertainment expenses with no receipts. What is $2 million? That could have helped security issues. That would be a better expenditure of the $2 million.

Day after day in the House of Commons, do we see these issues raised? Certainly not by the NDP. Members can check Hansard and they would see that day after day in question period the NDP was not raising issues such as spending money on national security. Did the NDP raise questions about corruption? No. The NDP talked about the United States and it talked about George Bush. That is right, it was not the province of Ontario. The NDP was not talking about problems with cities. It was not talking about issues that I think concern a lot of Canadians as to where and how their money was being spent. The NDP was not talking about corruption. It was talking about the United States.

For a long time I said that I could not figure out where the NDP members were coming from. Even among their own priorities, even if it is not national security, within their own priorities, would they not be better off taking the government to account for this corruption, for the things that they would want to spend money on, even if it is not those recommended in the fourth report?

Then I finally figured it out. The reason why the NDP members were not as upset as those of us in the Conservative Party and Canadians were about that kind of corruption is because if they attack that they were indirectly attacking big government. That is the whole thing. The problem with the Liberal Party is that, as a government, it is involved with everything and every aspect of our lives. It is fixing it, pulling it, subsidizing it, providing kickbacks, commissions, payoffs, phoney contracts, and phony invoices.

That is what it was all about. However, that is just a byproduct of big government. There could be some problems with big government, but I really think that is the reason. I think that is the reason why they never twigged on to it. What is fascinating about their latest marriage is that they voted against the first budget and then when the news about corruption got really bad, that is when they joined. They said, “We had better get together with you guys. This is really looking bad now. We had no idea of this level of corruption”.

Instead of worrying about some of the important issues like border security, the RCMP and some of the other issues, they have signed on with each other in an orgy of spending. It is hundreds of millions of dollars every single day and it will never end of course until we end this coalition. That day will come.

I can tell the member for Brome—Missisquoi that if he is worried about questions like security, a Conservative government will make this a priority. Finally, Canadians will get a government for which this will be a priority, not paying off its friends. This is not going to be a priority for this government. That will come to an end with a Conservative government. We will not be relying, as takes place now, on the local police forces having to pick up the slack, having to pick up the gap between what the Government of Canada thinks is enough for the security of the country and what the country really needs. That day will come to an end when we have a new government in the country and I think it is coming soon.

It is interesting that a government member now is bringing forward this motion. Who knows, we may see the sixth report which is a reminder that the fourth report has not been concurred in.

I urge the hon. member to go home, make sure he lets all his constituents know that the government is not spending money where it is supposed to be spending. It is spending money on the wrong things, as is evidenced by the sworn testimony before the Gomery commission, the sworn testimony that we hear at the public accounts committee, and all the other information outside of these reports that are coming to light. He should tell his constituents that instead of spending money on the right things, he is now part of a group joined by the socialists to spend money and to allow this corruption to continue.

It is a very sad thing, but we will deal with it. I think that day is coming and it is coming very soon when Canadians are going to get their opportunity to pass judgment on the way the government has wasted money.

[Judi Longfield, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and Housing]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to debate the concurrence of the 21st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. For anyone who has been trying to follow the debate, they may have lost what the actual reason is for the concurrence motion.

In November a very sad thing happened. Members of Parliament were denied their parliamentary right, their privilege, to enter this precinct. This is something that should never happen in a Canadian Parliament. It happened because the President of the United States had come to address Parliament and as a result of what was going on in the world over the last number of years, obviously security was very heightened.

Something of that magnitude requires more than just the work of the parliamentary precinct. They do a phenomenal job of protecting us and guaranteeing our rights of access and freedom in this place. A number of additional security forces had to be called in. There were members from the RCMP, the OPP, and police forces from across Ontario here.

Members of Parliament from all sides were denied the right to come to this place, and I will talk about what we do in this place and why it is so important that we should be able to enter. As members of Parliament we have a parliamentary ring on a finger or on a lapel. Others carry other forms of identification that just did not seem to be good enough. The whip of the Bloc Québécois pointed out that some of those police officers, when he and others were trying to put their case forward to indicate that they had the right to be here were actually not conversant in French. Some of my colleagues on the other side found that it was very difficult for them to communicate with these English speaking forces.

One of the things that the report actually suggested was the importance that all members of Parliament be able to communicate in both official languages and in the one of their choice. In this case, that was not possible. So not only did the report indicate that everything must be done to ensure that all members of Parliament have the right to be in this place or in committee, to carry on the work of the nation, we also have to ensure they are able to do it in both official languages and be able to communicate. I have not heard this in the debate today, so I was a little disappointed in that.

I am disappointed in the notion that we should not be concurring in a report. There was unanimous support in the committee. I am not certain that all members of Parliament realize the magnitude of this breach of our privilege. It is important and certainly now every member of Parliament will understand what happened on that day in November when members from all sides were not able to access Parliament Hill.

At the same time, the demonstrators were able to get free access. Members of the media were able to get access, but somehow members of Parliament, people who have been elected by their constituents to do the business of the nation, were not able to access Parliament.

We are in a minority government situation and arguably, carrying on the business of the nation becomes a little more difficult. There was a suggestion that it is inappropriate, when things are logjammed and we are having some difficulty, that other parties might want to help and assist in getting some of these things done. The whip of one of the opposition parties suggested to the member for Timmins—James Bay that somehow the Liberals in that riding would be outraged.

I would say to him that my mother, who is a resident and a constituent of the hon. member's, was very happy that we were working together. She has spent her entire life in education, defending the downtrodden, working for seniors and working for children. She knows that this budget which provides an additional $31 million for literacy is extremely important. She knows what happens when people cannot find affordable day care. She understands that we need additional funding in post-secondary education. She agrees with members of the New Democratic Party, with the member for Timmins--James Bay who represents her, that we need to work together. That is what minority government is about. It is about working together.

I also know that the mother of the Minister of Labour and Housing would be extremely proud of the coalition because she also lives in the constituency of the member for Timmins--James Bay. She knows how hard her son has been working to come up money for affordable housing. In northern areas there is a large aboriginal community. These are things that we need to be working together on. They are not just Liberal values. They are also the values of the New Democratic Party, working for aboriginal communities and housing.

When members of Parliament are stopped at the edge of Parliament Hill, when they are not able to move onto the Hill, and come into committee or into the House, their privileges, and I would suggest that the rights of all Canadians, are being infringed upon because we cannot get into this place and talk about those things that are extremely important.

The member for Acadie--Bathurst was also talking about being proud. My father was born in Bathurst, also a Liberal, and would be pleased today that the Liberals and the NDP could get together on issues that are important to the people on the east coast and in northern Ontario. That is what minority government is about, working together, putting a little water in the wine, each giving a little, but we are working for the betterment of all Canadians. It is extremely important and it is important that members of Parliament have access to this place.

It is important that we have access to this place. When we are denied access to this place, we should be able to explain our situation in both languages. That did not happen on the day of November 30. We were not able to use the language that we felt most comfortable in to convey to the people who were trying to deny us access that we were members of Parliament, that we had been elected to this place. Yes, we were elected in a minority situation but we were elected to this place to do the work of the nation.

I would suggest that it is important that we talk about what happened that day, that we look at the recommendations that the committee made to ensure that this does not happen again. We do not agree with everything that goes on here. I would suggest that I do not agree with everything that my party puts forward. From time to time I have voted against legislation that my party has put forward and I suspect that I will probably do that again. I know that on Bill C-38 I have a fundamental difference with my party on something I think is extremely important, but I deserve the right to have free access to this place, to come in, and to convey my views on that.

From time to time I hear things from the other side that I agree with, quite frankly. I agree that we should be spending more money on health. I agree that we should be spending more money on seniors. I agree that we should be spending more money on the environment. Good heavens, people from coast to coast to coast understand how important it is that we have clean air and clean water. We understand how important it is to put money into the environment, to protect the environment. Some of these things we cannot get back if we lose. We need to do that and it is extremely important, but again I come back to the reason that we are here.

We are talking about concurrence in a report that is trying to defend the basic privileges of members of the House of Commons, the right to have free, unlimited and unrestricted access to this place. On November 30, the day when there were a lot of extra people around here, people who were there to protect not only us but the President of the United States and other dignitaries, in their overzealousness to protect, actually infringed upon some of our rights and kept some of us out. This report deals with that and any future time when we have a number of people here to protect us. That is important. We want to be protected and we need to be protected.

I do not think there was any malice. I do not think they wanted to keep us out. They just did not have the appropriate procedures. They were not given a copy of our little green card with our picture signed by the Speaker. They did not have it. They had a number of pieces of identification that they were referring to, but they did not have that one. That should not happen. I guess it was oversight. People just automatically assumed.

It is really quite amazing. When I first came here in 1997, I was absolutely amazed. Every place I walked people referred to me by my first name. They welcomed me because the people who are here to serve this place, whether they be the clerks, the couriers, absolutely everyone who works here knows that it is important to recognize each and every one of us. They have and it is remarkable.

I am always amazed when they call the roll during a vote, that someone who has never done it before can go through every member of Parliament and almost always get it correct. Riding names are constantly changing, but they do it and they do it in an absolutely incredible fashion. Therefore we have taken a lot of this for granted.

The people who drive the buses and the people who serve us know who we are. They nod. Some of us from time to time forget to wear our parliamentary pins and we become quite incensed if by accident, when we are in the other place, they do not recognize us because we have come to expect that they all know who we are.

For the most part they do, but on occasions such as what happened on November 30, 2004 there were people from outside and they did not recognize all of us. They did not recognize the dean of the House. I cannot imagine anyone who has ever turned on a television who would not recognize that tall bearded gentleman, but they did not. When he produced his ID, it was not sufficient. It was not part of what the security forces were given as an appropriate credential to enter the House. Therefore, he was upset. The whip for the Bloc was extremely upset and he should be because it is his right to be here.

It is important that we look at the report and the recommendations that we made. We must ensure that in the future all the i s are dotted and all the t s are crossed, that whatever force or whatever group of people who are here understand and appreciate, that along with the others who have security passes and other things, that members of Parliament have a right to be in this place.

We even have a right I would suggest to make outlandish statements, and we do it every day, but that is our right. We have the right to make unholy alliances. I think Canadians will judge what the Bloc and the Conservatives are doing. I think Canadians understand that and I do not have to go into great detail. They understand and they will cast their vote accordingly.

Canadians will understand what made the New Democratic Party look at what we were facing in a minority situation and understand that this was an opportunity to get a number of things done. They understand that. Canadians want the budget passed. They want things in the budget that they think are good for them. They want a new deal for communities.

Yesterday the regional chair of the municipality of Durham wrote a very impassioned letter to the local paper indicating that it was extremely important that the budget be passed. It was extremely important because communities from coast to coast to coast are anticipating the money from the gas tax. They are anticipating the new deal because they have infrastructure programs and things that they need to do. If another party realizes that we must get together to do that, I think we are all working for Canadians.

Again, because I understand relevancy, Madam Speaker, we cannot do it if we cannot get into this place, if somehow we are stopped at the edge of Parliament Hill. We cannot do it if we cannot get to committee. In this case, some were at committee outside this precinct and could not get back in.

In this particular case there was no vote, but there may be a hotly debated issue. It could happen. If we do not get the procedure right, then at some point or another we could all find that our basic rights and privileges have been violated.

In this case perhaps there was not a vote or a hotly debated issue, but it could have happened. If we do not get the procedure right, then we all at some point or another could find that our basic rights and privileges are violated. It is extremely important that we resolve this. We have had the debate. We are talking about it. We have made it clear to the public what happened. I see this today as an opportunity to explain to Canadians, Canadians who sent us here to Ottawa to do our jobs.

I go back to my home riding of Whitby—Oshawa and my constituents are incredibly patient and understanding. They understand a minority situation. I used to be home a lot more. I used to get home on Fridays. I used to have the occasional Monday back in the riding when I could see constituents. I cannot any longer. I have duties as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and Housing which keep me here in Ottawa. We are in a minority situation and it is important that we be here. My constituents sent me here to do a job. They sent me here to fight on their behalf. They sent me here knowing that I would stand in this place, or that I would work in committee or that I would take the opportunity to talk to ministers to get things done.

Because I could enter this place freely, I was able to talk to the Minister of Transport and explain to him how extremely important it was to get money for a marina in my riding. I am pleased to say that we got $1.5 million for cleanup. That is good environmental policy, but I could not do that if I could not get in here.

My constituents understand that it is important to talk to the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Natural Resources on issues like money for the auto industry, $200 million for the Beacon project. We do not get that done by standing on the outskirts of Parliament Hill. We can only do that if we can get on to the ground, be in this chamber and be able to talk about things with our ministers and to have exchanges with other members of Parliament.

I am not in the House a great deal. I spend a lot of time in committee and I think that is where good work is done.

I was chair of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. As chair, I very seldom got actively involved in the debate. However, when we were looking at things that needed to be done, I had an opportunity to suggest we do a study on literacy.

Literacy and the lack of it, the low literacy skills across the country, is very frightening. Because I could enter this place, because I could get to committee, we were able to have number of people come and make presentations. I am extremely proud of the members on all sides, the Conservatives, the Bloc and the NDP. We got together and we tabled a report on literacy. We were further rewarded in the budget this year when the finance minister announced another $31 million for the national literacy secretariat. I know members on all sides support that. I know they want to see that passed. I am certain there are some things they do not like in the budget, but I think if they were truly anxious to make this place work, they could find the things that are important.

I cannot believe for an instant that Conservative members in some of the ridings they represent do not have seniors or do not want more money for them. I cannot believe they do not have children in their ridings who need day care, or post-secondary students who require additional help, or cities and municipalities that need infrastructure dollars and want a fair share of the gas tax. However, to hear those members talk about the budget and how disgusting it is, I just do not understand. They have small businesses. Do they not want tax breaks for small businesses? Small business is the engine that drives our country.Talking about jobs, do they not want the money that we are putting into training?

There are a lot of people out there who want jobs and who need additional funds to help them train. I find it very strange. I find it strange that the Bloc Québécois members do not understand that there are a lot of things in the budget that their constituents want. They want more money for seniors. Their seniors are no different from the seniors in any other part of the country. They need this assistance. They need affordable housing. They want it and they expect their members to come to this place to work together.

Canadians elected a minority government because they thought it was time to rebalance. They have a minority government, but they did not expect a minority government to have one or two parties constantly looking at the polls and deciding that maybe it was time to pull the plug. They expected us to roll up our sleeves and work together

When people are asked about whether they want an election, a lot will say they never want an election. However, when they are asked if they want an election now, they say that they want one after Gomery tables his report. Canadians are fair, they are reasonable and they want to hear all the facts.

If members do not have access to this place, we cannot have debate and we cannot put the issues on the table. I think it is extremely important that we pass the concurrence motion and that we put plans in place to ensure that all members of Parliament, no matter on which side they sit, have free access to this place, unimpeded and unrestricted.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I do not want any member of the House to think that this particular issue of the access to this House of Commons, to the Parliament Hill precinct, by members of Parliament from any party is not an important issue to me.

Despite the irrelevant question of relevance from the hon. Liberal member opposite, I had the advantage, unlike the member, of being present at the procedure and House affairs committee when we debated this very issue, which was brought forward by the hon. whip of the Bloc Québécois out of concern not only for his own access to the House and to the precinct during President Bush's visit, but for access by all members of Parliament from all parties.

I am not trying to make light of that issue at all by raising these other issues connected with what exactly is going on here today. It is only fair that the viewing public watching the proceedings today understand what is behind this. It is absolutely disgusting that the member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell would use this concurrence motion, the very procedure that he himself ranted against only a couple of weeks ago, saying, “This is awful. It is terrible that the official opposition would use this to delay the important business of the House”.

The House leader of the government has stated that he wants to bring forward Bill C-43, the budget bill. He wants to ensure that we have a vote on Bill C-38. Lo and behold, today is one of the days. This morning we started out by debating Bill C-38, the marriage legislation, the very legislation that the government, the Liberal Party, says it wants to get passed, yet it is on this very day we are debating Bill C-38 that the member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell actually moves his concurrence motion on this totally separate issue.

I think that what we are seeing today is nothing other than the Liberals' last desperate attempt to cling to power. Every procedure that we as the opposition have to attempt to hold the Liberal government accountable in this chamber is being thwarted by the Liberals and their government because they do not want to be held accountable.

What would my motion have been had we been debating it today? What about my concurrence in the procedure and House affairs committee report? The irony here as well is that the hon. member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell is the very chairman of the procedure and House affairs committee who actually came in on the Friday before the break week and introduced the 35th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for which I wanted to move concurrence today.

What does that deal with? It deals with the fact that the government has taken away from all three opposition parties the wherewithal to have opposition days at this time. Normally we would have had one a couple of weeks ago. Normally the New Democratic Party would be having one on Wednesday, May 5; it was slated to have that day. None of them are happening now. The New Democratic Party was quite upset about it before, but now that it has cut this backroom deal, the secret deal that apparently is written on a napkin somewhere, somehow now those members do not mind supporting a corrupt Liberal government.

Civil Marriage Act

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to again join the debate on Bill C-38 on behalf of the residents of Niagara West--Glanbrook. As I have noted previously, the constituents of my riding have made it abundantly clear that they are against the radical change in the definition of marriage which the Prime Minister wants to leave behind as his legacy.

Briefly, I want to remind the members of Parliament, particularly those who feel forced to support Bill C-38 or lose their cabinet posts, how strongly Canadians feel about this issue.

When was the last time, if ever, their constituency or Ottawa offices received feedback from more than 10,000 people on a single issue? That has been the case in Niagara West--Glanbrook, with almost 90% supporting the position that the definition of marriage must be maintained as being exclusively between one man and one woman. If we think that this debate is only for adults and that kids are not engaged, let me tell members about one of my young constituents, a high school student named Nalini Ramaden, who was so concerned that she had petitions filled out and dropped off at my office.

I have been accused by some of being biased in favour of protecting the traditional definition of marriage. Yes, I am. I have always been upfront and transparent about my views. During the election I told voters that my intention was to maintain the institution of marriage as we know it and I asked for their support. They gave me their support and they recently reiterated their objection to Bill C-38 by contacting my office in massive numbers. I am listening to my constituents and I am acting on their directions by voting against the bill. I again ask the members of cabinet this. Are they doing the same for their constituents or are their first loyalties to the Prime Minister's Office?

I want to dispel the nonsense argument that maintaining the traditional definition of marriage is somehow discriminatory or infringes on human rights. Only two countries in the world have legislated same sex marriage at the national level: Belgium and the Netherlands. Even in these countries there are still some legal differences that make distinctions between opposite sex marriages and same sex unions. The vast majority of the jurisdictions have gone the route of recognizing civil unions or domestic partnerships or similar sounding designations.

We in the Conservative Party are proposing a similar moderate compromise position that would put Canada in the company of some of the most liberal and progressive countries in the western world. We are proposing to preserve marriage while at the same time the rights of same sex couples can be recognized through a civil union or other means. Countries which have brought in laws similar to these are France, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Finland, Germany, Portugal and New Zealand. It seems that Canada's Liberal government stands alone in wanting to abolish the opposite sex nature of marriage.

The Conservative Party's position does not violate human rights as the Prime Minister alleges. Nor is it in any way un-Canadian, as he tries to portray. The only un-Canadian and anti-democratic position on this issue is the position of the Liberal government. By insisting upon an unnecessary and radical approach and ignoring or belittling the views of Canadians on this issue, the government is demonstrating an arrogance that is simply unprecedented, even for Liberals.

The Prime Minister and cabinet are aware of the hypocrisy and the argument that the Conservative position of preserving marriage goes against the Charter of Rights. I remind everybody that on April 12, 34 members of the Liberal caucus voted in favour of the Conservative amendment. If the Prime Minister truly believes that our position of respecting the will of the majority goes against Canadian values, I have to wonder why he has not kicked those 34 MPs out of his caucus. I know the answer. Deep down the Prime Minister knows Bill C-38 really does not reflect Canadian values. It reflects his reluctance to acknowledge that he is out of touch with Canadians.

The Liberals did not campaign on the theme of changing the meaning of marriage. In fact, most Liberal candidates did all they could to avoid even talking about this issue. If the Prime Minister is so convinced of his moral authority to govern and to make such a fundamental change to the enduring and timeless institution of marriage, I would be most entertained to hear further strained arguments attempting to justify his lack of consultation with Canadians

What is the rush to pass this legislation? There are no legal requirements or looming deadlines that must be met. Again, if cabinet is so certain the bill is the right measure, then let us welcome some real public involvement. Canadians have a strong set of principles. The government should trust the public to make the right decision. Leave the legislation alone until Canadians can cast a vote for various candidates of parties based on their position whenever the next election is held.

Perhaps that is where the problem lays. The government does not respect Canadians enough to listen to them. It does not respect how tax dollars are spent. It does not want to hear what people have to say about the government's lack of management and misplaced priorities.

As an example of how much cabinet cares about listening to their constituents, I have had about a dozen constituents from the neighbouring riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek call my office to complain that the Liberal MP will not respond to their calls or letters regarding Bill C-38.

I know that cabinet duties can obviously take considerable time, but there is an equally and, in fact, more important duty of all MPs, whether in cabinet or not, to faithfully represent voters in their ridings who have placed a trust in them.

Confidence and trust in politicians is so incredibly low these days. I recently received a letter from a constituent who only half-jokingly suggested, “We need the police force to protect our Canadians from politicians”. It is truly sad--

[Jeremy Harrison, Conservative, Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on behalf of my constituents of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River to speak to Bill C-38, the same sex marriage bill, the very subject upon which I wrote my thesis in law school.

I, like most of my colleagues on this side of the House, the vast majority of my constituents in northern Saskatchewan and many on the other side as well, believe in the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

However in the course of this debate those of us who support marriage have been told that to amend the bill to reflect a traditional definition of marriage would be a violation of human rights and an unconstitutional violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I believe this is an attempt by the government to shift the grounds of the debate. The Liberals do not want to debate the question of traditional marriage versus same sex marriage, so they would rather focus on attacking their opponents as opposing human rights and the charter.

However this debate is not about human rights. It is a political social policy decision and should be treated in that light. Let me present several reasons why the issue of same sex marriage is not a human rights issue and why defining the traditional definition of marriage would not violate the charter or require the use of the notwithstanding clause.

First, no internationally recognized human rights document has ever suggested that there is a right to same sex marriage. For example, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the foundational United Nations human rights charter, almost all of the rights listed are worded as purely individual rights, rights which everyone shall have or no one shall be denied, but when it comes to marriage the declaration says:

Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.

The use of the term “men and women” here rather than “everyone” suggests that only traditional opposite sex marriage is contemplated. The subsequent International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights contains similar language.

Attempts to pursue same sex marriage as an international human rights issue have failed. In 1998 the European Court of Justice held that “Stable relationships between two persons of the same sex are not regarded as equivalent to marriages”.

In 1996 the New Zealand Court of Appeal rejected the recognition of same sex marriages, despite the fact that New Zealand's bill of rights explicitly listed sexual orientation as prohibited grounds of discrimination. When the New Zealand decision was challenged before the United Nations Human Rights Commission as a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UNHRC ruled in 2002 that there was no case for discrimination simply on the basis of refusing to marry homosexual couples.

In fact, to this date, no international human rights body and no national supreme court has ever found that there is a human right to same sex marriage. The only courts that have found in favour of a right to same sex marriage are provincial or state level courts in Canada and the United States.

If same sex marriage is not a basic human right in the sense of internationally recognized human rights law, is it a violation of Canadian charter rights? While several provincial courts of appeal have said that it is, we still have not heard from the highest court in the land.

In the same sex reference case, the Supreme Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of a traditional definition of marriage, despite a clear request from the government to answer this question.

Furthermore, all of the lower court decisions in favour of same sex marriage were dealing with common law, judge made law from over a century ago, not a recent statute passed by a democratically elected legislature. It is quite possible that those lower courts may have found differently if there was a marriage act passed by Parliament defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

The whole discussion of the notwithstanding clause is an irrelevant distraction to this debate. There is simply no reason to use or discuss the use of the notwithstanding clause in the absence of a Supreme Court decision which indicates that the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court has not done so.

The Supreme Court has also said in various cases that statute law requires greater deference than common law. Should legislation upholding the traditional definition of marriage be passed, a good argument can be made that the Supreme Court would give it considerable deference.

There are several examples of Parliament having passed statutes without using the notwithstanding clause that effectively reversed judicial decisions, including Supreme Court decisions, under common law. The courts have accepted these exercises of parliamentary sovereignty.

In 1995 Parliament passed Bill C-72 reversing the Supreme Court's decision in Daviault, which allowed extreme intoxication as a criminal defence.

When this new law was challenged in the subsequent Mills case, the Supreme Court wisely ruled, in a decision by Justices McLachlin and Iacobucci:

It does not follow from the fact that a law passed by Parliament differs from a regime envisaged by the Court in the absence of a statutory scheme, that Parliament's law is unconstitutional. Parliament may build on the Court's decision, and develop a different scheme as long as it remains constitutional. Just as Parliament must respect the Court's rulings, so the Court must respect Parliament's determination that the judicial scheme can be improved. To insist on slavish conformity would belie the mutual respect that underpins the relationship between the courts and legislature that is so essential to our constitutional democracy....

There is good reason to believe that the Supreme Court, if it were eventually asked to rule on a new statutory definition of marriage combined with a full and equal recognition of legal rights and benefits for same sex couples, might well accept it.

The Conservative position that the use of the notwithstanding clause is not required to legislate a traditional definition of marriage is supported by law professor Alan Brudner of the University of Toronto, who recently wrote in the Globe and Mail :

--the judicially declared unconstitutionality of the common law definition of marriage does not entail the unconstitutionality of parliamentary legislation affirming the same definition.

Citing the case of Regina v. Swain, where the Supreme Court ruled that it did not have to subject a charter decision on common law to the same “reasonable limits” test as it would for a statute, Professor Brudner writes:

For all we know, therefore, courts may uphold opposition sex marriage as a reasonable limit on the right against discrimination when the restriction comes from a democratic body.

Professor Brudner argues against those who have argued that a pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause is the only way to uphold the traditional definition of marriage. He stated that:

These arguments misconceive the role of a notwithstanding clause in a constitutional democracy. Certainly, that role cannot be to protect laws suspected of being unconstitutional against judicial scrutiny....Rather, the legitimate role of a notwithstanding clause in a constitutional state is to provide a democratic veto over a judicial declaration of invalidity, where the court's reasoning discloses a failure to defer to the parliamentary body on a question of political discretion...the notwithstanding clause should be invoked by Parliament only after the Supreme Court has ruled on the constitutionality of a law.

As yet there has been no such law for the Supreme Court to consider, so there is no need to use the notwithstanding clause.

There is every reason to believe that if the House moved to bring in a reasonable, democratic, compromise solution, one which defined in statute that marriage remains the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, which extended equal rights and benefits to couples living in other forms of unions and which fully protected freedom of religion to the extent possible under federal law, the Supreme Court of Canada would honour such a decision of Parliament.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would like to make an observation before I begin my remarks. The Prime Minister claimed this past week that his priority was to pass the budget, but here we are on Monday debating the marriage bill. Why are Liberals so intent on ramming this bill through Parliament? Why is this their number one priority?

Let me proceed to my remarks. The debate around Bill C-38 often reverts back to the rights of Canadians. Proponents of the bill say that partners of the same sex have the right to marry. What seems to be forgotten, however, are the rights of children, who are just as Canadian as we all are. Their well-being seems to have been forgotten.

Concern for our children should be the very foundation of this debate. Critics say that we should not link children to marriage, but we know that marriage is the basis for a strong healthy family. Many Canadians are referring to Bill C-38 not as the “same sex marriage” bill but instead as the “traditional family” bill. This bill is threatening the very premise of traditional families, of which a mother and a father are at the core. Time and time again, studies have confirmed that our children benefit most when they are raised in a home with both a mother and a father. That fact cannot be lost in this debate.

We are being asked to support the introduction of a law that is against the sanctified ceremony which ultimately tends to the furtherance of life. I, for one, remain strongly opposed to such a law. I was opposed to any change to the definition of marriage when it came before the House in 1999 and my stand is unwavering. I will defend marriage in its true form as the union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Transmission of human life has been the focus of much of our societal values. Also, kids want to know who their biological parents are. For example, children in Australia are now arguing that they have the right to know the identity of their parents and to be raised by them if possible.

We are already seeing a deconstruction of the societal institution of marriage. Many youth think marriage is just love and commitment. Bill C-38 is only adding to that thought process. In the Netherlands, for example, expanding the definition of marriage has not encouraged more to marry. It has instead had the opposite effect. In the last three years it has become evident that the change in definition is in fact destroying the stability of marriage and is affecting children. What will the passing of a similar bill in Canada do to the generation ahead of us?

Protection of society should be foremost. Courts are becoming not a shield but rather a sword for this societal liberalism. Liberals talk about purging Canada of these toxic elements. We are now seeing people come before tribunals to have their views examined. This is the new inquisition. We are abandoning traditional liberalism.

That brings us to the battle cry of the Liberals during this debate: that those opposed to same sex marriage are “un-Canadian”. How much more derogatory could they get? What the Liberals are saying to us is that if we do not agree with their bill we are un-Canadian. They say we are un-Canadian because we wish to uphold the traditional definition of marriage, un-Canadian because we wish to see the very unique and religious union of marriage upheld and un-Canadian because we understand the ramifications attached to the passing of Bill C-38.

Information provided by the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada defines those ramifications. Its document states:

Are people of faith un-Canadian? Polls have consistently shown that Canadians are deeply divided on the issue of same-sex marriage, yet the government contends that those who oppose the redefinition of marriage are 'un-Canadian'. Christians who cannot accept same-sex unions as 'marriage' will be forced into the closets recently vacated by gays and lesbians. The people whose values Canada was founded on will be pushed to the margins of society.

If not marriage, what language can we use to promote our beliefs, traditions and religious understanding of the nature of marriage without being silenced by accusations of intolerance? What language can we use to promote the enduring and exclusive sexual bonding of males and females, and the importance of this relationship to the raising of children?

The government is not required to change the definition of marriage. I urge all members to remember that. The Supreme Court of Canada did not rule that the charter requires the definition of marriage to be redefined.

Marriage under its current definition has withstood the test of time. Generations of heterosexual Canadians have had the privilege to be united in marriage, having met restrictions as set out in our laws, those restrictions being: first, it is between a man and a woman; second, it is restricted to those of a certain age; third, it is limited to two people; fourth, blood relatives are restricted from marrying; and fifth, both parties must be in agreement to the marriage; marriage cannot be by force.

These restrictions were put in place to protect Canadians and our society. Having restrictions does not equal a violation of human rights. The current definition of marriage is not a violation of human rights.

I have received hundreds of letters from my constituents in the riding of Yorkton--Melville and from other Canadians adamantly opposed to Bill C-38. For these people, marriage under its current definition is as true as the sky is blue. These letters come from all sorts of Canadians, including newlyweds and those who have been married for decades. They value the meaning of their vows and the recognition of marriage in the eyes of our land and of God. They cannot fathom how a government would take something so sacred and throw it by the wayside.

Among the letters I received was one from Regina. The author wrote that if Bill C-38 should pass she would consider her 35 year marriage annulled. She is certainly not alone in her thoughts.

This is not an issue that needs to be pushed down the throats of Canadians because a single government says so. In fact, just five short years ago, members of the Liberal government declared that the definition of marriage should not be changed. The then minister of justice stated:

Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages...I fundamentally do not believe that it is necessary to change the definition of marriage in order to accommodate the equality issues around same sex partners which now face us as Canadians.

Here is another quote from that same minister of justice in 2000:

We recognize that marriage is a fundamental value and important to Canadians. That value and importance is in no way undermined by recognizing in law other forms of committed relationships.

What has changed since the Liberals assured and then reassured Canadians that they would uphold the traditional definition of marriage? Is this Liberal government under the impression that marriage is no longer a fundamental value and is now unimportant to Canadians? If that is what the Liberals believe, I am more than willing to share hundreds of letters that state otherwise. In fact, I encourage members on the government side to read these letters, because I do not think they comprehend the importance of marriage to Canadians. I urge the government to take this a step further and allow Canadians to speak for themselves instead of assuming it knows what Canadians think. Let us get out there and find out.

As elected representatives of Canadians, we should be representing the interests of Canadians. Bill C-38 is being rammed through so quickly that I believe many members have not had time to truly understand this issue and therefore represent Canadians properly in Parliament.

If we pass same sex marriage legislation we are telling the rest of the world that it is violating human rights, yet attempts to pursue same sex marriage as an international human rights issue have failed. In 1998 the European court of justice held that “stable relationships between two persons of the same sex were not regarded as equivalent to marriages...”.

In 1996 the New Zealand court of appeal rejected the recognition of same sex marriages despite the fact that New Zealand's bill of rights explicitly listed sexual orientation as a prohibited grounds of discrimination. When the New Zealand decision was challenged before the United Nations Human Rights Commission as a violation of the international covenant on civil and political rights, the UNHRC ruled in 2002 that there was no case for discrimination simply on the basis of refusing to marry homosexual couples.

To this date, no international human rights body and no national supreme court has ever found that there is a human right to same sex marriage. What is more, by passing Bill C-38 in Canada, we are taking away the religious rights and freedoms of Canadians. How un-Canadian is that?

In provinces that are allowing same sex couples to marry, mayors and marriage commissioners are obligated to perform official ceremonies or resign. There is no freedom there. In British Columbia there is already a human rights complaint against a Knights of Columbus hall because the members would not rent the facility to a lesbian couple for a wedding ceremony. There is no religious freedom there either.

Sweden and Canada are already creating a chill on expression of concern over same sex marriage. How can we criticize China for imprisoning those who practise their religion when we cannot offer protection of religious beliefs in Canada?

Finally, the underlying truth of Bill C-38 is that it is threatening Canadian families. While that may not be the original intent, that is what is happening. Marriage is the foundation of family, it is child focused and it has served Canadians since Confederation. Bill C-38 does nothing more than minimize marriage to committed adult relationships. Marriage will no longer be about having and raising children, and lost from Canadian law will be the words “husband” and “wife”.

The Liberals are asking us to alter the future of Canadian families. I simply cannot support such a detrimental request.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today and speak on behalf of my constituents of Fundy Royal and speak to this very important issue.

I have listened with interest to members' speeches on both sides of this issue over the course of the debate on Bill C-38. One thing that has become increasingly clear is that we would not even be having this debate if the majority of those on the other side had kept their word to Canadians, the word that they gave just a few years ago to take all steps necessary to preserve the traditional definition of marriage in Canada.

I believe that oftentimes we have a short memory. I know I do sometimes, but when they are matters of great importance, it is constructive to remind Canadians what their elected representatives have said, what they have done, and how they have voted. We elect members of Parliament based on what they have said and what they have done in the past, and we would be remiss to forget what they have done when we head into debate on this issue.

We know that a few years ago the majority on that side, the current Prime Minister, the current Deputy Prime Minister, many cabinet ministers and the list goes on, because of the importance of marriage in all societies, in all religions, across the country, and across the globe, voted and told Canadians they would take all necessary steps to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. What we have seen now, as is so often the case, is a promise made and a promise broken. It is a shame that Canadians have been led down this path because Canadians of good will voted for their members based on those statements that were made.

One thing has become increasingly clear. Canadians are divided on this issue. The last speaker went through the scenario of religious freedom and we have heard from respected constitutional experts that religious freedom can be under attack when we change the definition of marriage. We have seen it already. Bishop Fred Henry in Calgary has already been brought before a Human Rights Commission. He has had two complaints lodged against him for speaking out on an issue that is so important to his faith, the issue of marriage. That is just the beginning. The ink has not even dried on this particular bill and we have seen attacks on freedom of religion.

One thing that has become increasingly clear, when we look at Canada in the world context, is that the Liberals have taken an intolerant and divisive approach to an issue that Canadians feel very strongly about. As we have seen with this recent sponsorship scandal, the hardline approach taken by the Liberals, rather than unite Canadians, has divided Canadians.

It is the job of members of Parliament in a country such as ours, when we are debating these issues, to take an approach that can unite Canadians, an approach that can bring Canadians together in an inclusive manner. As parliamentarians we should be looking for win-win solutions to issues facing Canadians rather than focusing on an approach that splits Canadians. If we look at the polls, and I know those on the other side do, Canadians overwhelmingly support the current definition of marriage.

Canadians are telling us increasingly and overwhelmingly that they support equal rights, benefits and obligations under the law for all Canadians. That is clear. We are a fair people. We support equality for all Canadians. They also tell us that they support marriage continuing to mean the union of one man and one woman, as it does incidentally on the rest of planet Earth. This is why I believe that Canadians overwhelmingly support the approach taken by my leader to continue to recognize the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

His proposal also provides that those in same sex relationships would have equal rights benefits and obligations under federal law. This is an approach that is fair. It is a Canadian approach to this issue.

We believe this approach will meet the needs of Canadians who believe that marriage is and should remain an institution. Justice La Forest, a Supreme Court of Canada justice, in the Egan decision said that it is a heterosexual institution. This also satisfies those who seek recognition and equality under the federal law of Canada.

This approach is not only consistent with the beliefs of the vast majority of Canadians, it is also instructive to learn, as we research this, it is consistent, as we heard in the recent opinion, with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is certainly consistent with the emerging practice of countries across the globe. In the entire industrialized world, this is the approach that modern countries are taking.

Around the world there are only two countries that have legislated same sex marriage. They are Belgium and the Netherlands. Those are the only two. By far, the vast majority of jurisdictions have gone the route that Canadians prefer, endorse and are calling on members of Parliament to take, and that is recognizing civil unions and domestic partnerships, benefits and obligations but not abolishing in law what the word “marriage” means.

Countries such as France, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Finland, Germany, Portugal and New Zealand have all maintained the traditional definition of marriage. Recently, Australia also specifically acted to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.

As well, it is important to know that no national or international court, including for that matter our own Supreme Court of Canada, has ruled that changing the definition of marriage is required to accommodate equality rights. As we know, the only thing our Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court in the land, ruled was unconstitutional in Bill C-38 was for the Liberals to state that they could protect religious freedoms. That in fact is what is unconstitutional. That is the great irony.

The court did not say the traditional definition of marriage was unconstitutional. It did not say the federal government had to change the definition of marriage. It said that if that definition is changed, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the House to protect religious freedoms. We have seen that already. We have seen those freedoms encroached by this win-lose approach that the Liberals have taken, rather than a win-win solution favoured by Canadians.

It strikes me as being a perfectly reasonable compromise for Canadian society to accept exactly the same position as the countries I just enumerated. This will satisfy the vast majority of Canadians who are seeking common ground on this issue and a Canadian solution. I do not believe that most Canadians are looking to be more radical than some of the most left leaning governments in the world. They are looking for a reasonable, moderate compromise that respects the rights of those who are in a same sex relationship while preserving the time honoured institution of marriage that is so fundamental to our society and all societies in the world.

This approach is the Canadian way. It is the only option being offered as an alternative and it is being offered by my party. The polls tell us that if the government squarely and honestly put the option forward of preserving marriage while recognizing the rights of those in other relationships, this is the option that Canadians would overwhelmingly choose.

Marriage and the family based on marriage are the basic institutions of society. We should not change these kinds of foundational institutions lightly or easily and I do not believe the government has demonstrated that there is any compelling reason to alter this central, social institution.

A few years ago the Deputy Prime Minister spoke to this. Canadians relied on what she said to support that side. She said:

We on this side agree that the institution of marriage is...central and important...[and it] has been consistently applied in Canada....

What the minister said next is important:

Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage....

Those are the words of the Deputy Prime Minister, who was speaking for the government. Canadians made the mistake of trusting the Liberals once. I hope they will not do it again.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Madam Speaker, at the outset allow me to thank my whip for the invitation to say a few words on the bill again. It is very much appreciated. Today, since I only have 10 minutes, I will concentrate on one thing, and that is what in my view is the legal and political fraud being perpetrated on Canadians and parliamentarians by the bill. I want to explain what I mean by that because these are very strong words and I mean them sincerely.

The government made a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. There were two sections of the proposed legislation. The first one deals with the civil marriage aspect and the second one reads as follows:

--nothing in this 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...

Section 3 of the act we are debating states the following:

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

As we can see, those two paragraphs are virtually identical. In the reference, the Supreme Court said this about section 2 which I just read. I will quote it verbatim. This is not me speaking, this is the Supreme Court of Canada speaking. It states:

Section 2 of the Proposed Act relates to those who may (or must) perform marriages. Legislative competence over the performance or solemnization of marriage is exclusively allocated to the provinces under s. 92(12) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Attorney General of Canada suggests that s. 2 of the Proposed Act is declaratory, merely making clear Parliament’s intention that other provisions of the Proposed Act not be read in a manner that trenches on the provinces’ jurisdiction over the solemnization of marriage. The provision might be seen as an attempt to reassure the provinces and to assuage the concerns of religious officials who perform marriages. However worthy of attention these concerns are, only the provinces may legislate exemptions to existing solemnization requirements, as any such exemption necessarily relates to the “solemnization of marriage” under s. 92(12). Section 2 of the Proposed Act is therefore ultra vires Parliament.

That means outside the scope and jurisdiction of this House. I continue:

While it is true that Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction to enact declaratory legislation relating to the interpretation of its own statutes, such declaratory provisions can have no bearing on the constitutional division of legislative authority. That is a matter to be determined, should the need arise, by the courts. It follows that a federal provision seeking to ensure that the Act within which it is situated is not interpreted so as to trench on provincial powers can have no effect and is superfluous.

Those are the words of the Supreme Court of Canada. Given those words, that the section proposed is ultra vires Parliament, that it is of no effect and that it is superfluous, what in heaven's name is it doing in the bill? It has no business being here unless it is here to try to con people into believing that this section will protect religious freedoms, and that is utter legal nonsense.

There are people in the House who are supporting the bill relying on this section. They are saying that they will pass this, but it will protect religious officials. That is absolute bunk. This section will not do that. It may very well be that the religious protection freedoms of the charter may do this, but that is not what this section says. This section says that this section will do it, and this section is ultra vires the Parliament of Canada and should not even be here as a matter of constitutional law. That is the first point.

I want to read into the record, for the benefit of my constituents at least, a letter that was published in the National Post last week. It has been referred to by other speakers. It states:

We, the undersigned legal counsel, maintain active practices or academic interest in litigation, human rights, religious, charity or constitutional law. We have reviewed two constitutional opinions provided by the law firm of Lang Michener..., on the subject of Bill C-38, the federal government's proposed legislation to legalize same sex marriage. What follows is a summary of the firm's main conclusions, followed by our own observations.

Question: Does the recent Same Sex Marriage Reference opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada...require Parliament to amend the common-law definition of marriage?

Answer: No.

That is a correct statement, in my view.

Question: Should it be the case that the purpose of the common-law definition of marriage arose out of “Christendom,” (as discussed in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the Reference),--

That is the Supreme Court reference and that is the Supreme Court's word, “Christendom”.

--is it consistent with constitutional precedent for Parliament to nevertheless define marriage as the union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others, so long as the purpose is secular and consistent with the Charter?

Answer: Yes. Legislation pertaining to the legal capacity for civil marriage falls within the subject matter of section 91(26) of the Constitution Act..., which pertains to the exclusive legislative competence of Parliament.

Question: Would Parliament be acting consistent with jurisprudence if it justified a statutory definition of marriage to one man and one woman on the basis that it would serve the best interests of children and to create a public institution that makes it more likely that a child will be raised by the child's own mother and father?

Answer: Yes. The Supreme Court has previously recognized the importance of protecting the best interests of children in a variety of contexts.

As has been pointed out, the Supreme Court has already recognized the importance of marriage as a heterosexual institution. Mr. Justice La Forest, in the Egan case, made that observation, but the Ontario Court of Appeal chose to ignore the Supreme Court when it suited its purposes.

Question: Should Bill C-38 be enacted as proposed, does Parliament have the constitutional jurisdiction to protect by statute the freedom of religious groups or officials to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with the group's religious beliefs?

Answer: No.

For the same reasons I just gave.

Question: If Bill C-38 is enacted, could religious groups or officials who refuse to solemnize a marriage become the subject of actions by others?

Answer: Yes. A putative same sex spouse who is refused a marriage licence or a place to hold a wedding--

And, I might add, a reception.

--would have a variety of options to assert his/her rights.

Question: Does Parliament have the power through Bill C-38 or otherwise to protect religious groups or officials from the actions referred to above?

Answer: No. The Parliament of Canada cannot protect religious groups or officials from the actions referred to above because the solemnization of marriage lies within the exclusive competence of the provinces.

The letter then goes on:

In the opinion of the undersigned,--

And, I will add, in my opinion as well:

--Lang Michener has correctly stated the law in Canada today. There is little doubt that, if passed, Bill C-38 will be used by provincial governments and others to override the rights of conscience and religion of ordinary Canadians.

It is already happening. We cannot pretend that it is not happening because there are already cases before human rights tribunals. It goes on:

Public officials will in all likelihood lose their employment simply because of their conscientious convictions.

It has happened.

It is our view that your constituents, including religious groups and the members of religious groups, will face expensive and ruinous lawsuits if Bill C-38 becomes law.

That is my view, too.

If members of Parliament believe in same sex marriage, vote for it, but do not vote for something because they think that section 3 is going to protect religious officials. That is bunk. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

[Dale Johnston, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, marriage is a time honoured institution that has stood the test of time and is one of the key foundations on which our society has been built. For thousands of years, marriage has been recognized as the union of one man and one woman. Since Confederation, marriage in Canadian law has been defined as the voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I believe that this definition of marriage has served society well and should be retained.

Since I was first elected here in 1993, Parliament has passed legislation to provide benefits formerly available only to heterosexual marriage spouses to common law partnerships and same sex couples. These initiatives were designed to bring equality into the system and we were assured time and again by the Liberal government that these changes would not affect the definition of marriage.

Canadian Alliance MPs were concerned that our constituents wanted more assurances that there would not be a change, so in June 1999, as my colleague just referred to, we proposed a motion that said:

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.

Liberal MPs, cabinet ministers, the prime minister of the day, the current Prime Minister and the former justice minister, who today is the Deputy Prime Minister, all voted to reaffirm the traditional definition of marriage and to take all necessary steps to preserve that definition.

Here is what the Deputy Prime Minister, the only Liberal serving in Alberta in Edmonton at the time and right now, had to say about the government's intentions, “Let me state for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or legislating same sex marriages”. She went on to confirm her support when she said:

I support the motion for maintaining the clear legal definition of marriage in Canada as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

I fundamentally do not believe that it is necessary to change the definition of marriage in order to accommodate the equality issues around same sex partners which now face us as Canadians.

With the full support of the current Prime Minister and the key players on the government frontbench, the motion passed overwhelmingly: 215 to 55.

In September 2003 we proposed a motion to reaffirm that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, just four years after the first time. This time the Liberals did an about face and the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister voted against reaffirming the traditional definition of marriage. What a flip-flop. When they do not dither, they flip-flop.

If Canadians cannot trust the Prime Minister's word on this, how can they be expected to trust his word on anything?

Conservatives believe that the vast majority of Canadians believe that marriage is a fundamental distinct institution, but that same sex couples can have equivalent rights and benefits.

The Leader of the Opposition, my leader, has tabled reasonable and thoughtful amendments to the bill. We believe the law should continue to recognize the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. We would propose that other forms of union, however structured by appropriate provincial legislation, whether they are called registered partnerships, domestic partnerships, civil unions or whatever, should be entitled to the same legal rights, privileges and obligations as marriage. Where there are issues affecting rights and benefits within the federal domain, our party would ensure that for all federal purposes those Canadians living in other forms of union would be recognized as having equal rights and benefits under the law.

We believe this is what most Canadians want. Recent public polls, and apparently even polls that the Liberals themselves have taken, show that nationally two out of every three Canadians are opposed to changing the definition of marriage.

The issue of same sex marriage may have divided some Canadians, but not in my constituency of Wetaskiwin where there is overwhelming support for the traditional definition of marriage. I did a survey and I received overwhelming support for the traditional definition.

This is what is said by some of the hundreds of letters I received on the subject. These are letters from my constituents. One resident from the town of Calmar, who feels the definition is critically important to the health of our society, said, “I hate to think what will happen to our society if same sex marriage is allowed. “What a disaster”, this person writes.

From Wetaskiwin, other constituents voice their opinions:

Marriage is an institution with deep religious, social and cultural significance. I want it to remain as a relationship between a man and a woman. History proves that when the traditional family unit is strong, a nation prospers.

I am not opposed to recognizing contractual relationships between two men and two women, which ensures them the same legal benefits as married couples. However, such a contract should not be called marriage.

Another man from Wetaskiwin wrote:

Marriage is a unique institution and it is not equal to any other form of relationship due to its status and character. Same sex unions should have their own special status and unique character under the law as heterosexual marriages are currently defined by our constitution...

Another person from Ponoka wrote, “I am not opposed to a civil union for homosexuals, but churches should not be forced to marry them and they will be if this law is passed”.

A couple from the historic town of Rocky Mountain House wrote:

We seek the preservation of the current definition of marriage. Rights for all individuals in our society are already protected by existing legislation. Any further protection can easily be provided without any need to attempt to change the definition of marriage”.

Canadians want to have a say on legislation and we were hopeful when we learned that the Prime Minister promised to expand the mandate of the legislative committee studying Bill C-38, but there is a wrinkle. There is always a wrinkle when we are dealing with the Liberals. As usual, the promise is not all it is made out to be. I think that is something that the NDP is rapidly learning. So far the legislative committee does not have the authority to hear anything but technical evidence. According to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, special legislative committees can hear witnesses only on technical matters and, as such, the committee itself has no jurisdiction to change its mandate.

I agree with my colleague from Provencher that the Liberal decision to refer Bill C-38 to such a legislative committee is part of a broader Liberal pattern to ignore the views of Canadians on the legislation.

The Liberals do not want Canadians to know that their government cannot adequately protect religious freedoms in federal legislation. It is troubling that the Liberal bill provides little in the way of assurances that religious freedoms will be protected if the legal definition of marriage is changed. It is bound to be challenged. We already saw some precedents just last week in a court decision when a judge said that the freedom of religion was not absolute.

The Liberals try to assure the public that they will protect religious freedoms, but in reality, the solemnization of marriage is a provincial responsibility. Bill C-38 does not do what the government is promising Canadians it will do.

The problem is the Supreme Court has already ruled that this clause is beyond the federal government's authority because provinces are responsible for performing marriage ceremonies. There is only one clause that protects and it is not a good one. They are not provided any specific statutory protection of religious freedom in the areas of their own jurisdiction.

I know my time is running short and I want to get two more quotes in.

This quote is from Lang Michener and is a legal opinion. It states:

There is little doubt that, if passed, Bill C-38 will be used by provincial governments and others to override the rights of conscience and religion of ordinary Canadians. Public officials will in all likelihood lose their employment simply because of their conscientious convictions. It is our view that your constituents, including religious groups and the members of religious groups, will face expensive and ruinous lawsuits.

I would like to quote a Catholic organization leaflet that I saw the other day which sums this up nicely. It states:

As an institution, marriage has an enormous significance, and has existed for thousands of years. The word we use for this institution--marriage--is full of history, meaning and symbolism, and should be kept for this unique reality.

I oppose this bill at every stage.

[Charlie Penson, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-38 and to be part of this historical debate.

This bill, which threatens to change the traditional definition of marriage, has sparked an overwhelming response in my riding. Without a doubt it has been the single most important issue that has come up in my riding during the 12 years that I have represented the Peace River constituency.

Peace River constituents feel passionately about this issue. Of the hundreds of letters and calls that I have received from constituents on this bill, over 96% have been against changing the definition of marriage. As well, over 450 constituents have signed petitions calling on the government to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Every day more people come forward to express their outrage that changes to the definition of marriage are even being contemplated.

Peace River constituents are not opposed to equal rights. In fact, the majority support the legal extension of rights and benefits to same sex couples. However, most are opposed to changing the historical term “marriage” to include these unions. Many have strongly held religious views and are extremely worried that their long-held beliefs are being threatened by Bill C-38. I do not think these views are limited to my riding; I believe they are shared by a majority of Canadians.

The debate is about basic social values in our country. I, along with many Canadians, support the traditional definition of marriage as being a union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others as expressed in our traditional common law. This common law has been developing for centuries in our country and before that, in the modern western world for several thousands of years. This definition has served society very well and has stood the test of time. It has been the fundamental cornerstone of our society, the bedrock of our society. My question is, why do we need to change it?

In my view, MPs opposing this bill should not have to defend what has been historically accepted. It should be the responsibility of those who want to overturn such a fundamental social institution to prove that it is absolutely necessary, that no other compromise could be expected to respect the rights of same sex couples while still preserving one of the cornerstones of our society and its many cultures. So far, in my view, the government has failed to do that.

One serious concern I have with the bill is that it does not provide protection for religious freedom in this country. There has been no specific statutory protection for religious freedom in areas falling under federal jurisdiction. This needs to be addressed and included in the legislation.

The preamble to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and we often hear it referred to from the other side of the House, states that “Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.” Many believe that the acknowledgement of God and the values that flow from a spiritual conception of law and morality is also a founding principle of Canada. Therefore it should be recognized and applied to the realities of modern life, including marriage.

The Supreme Court of Canada has never indicated in any ruling that the traditional definition of marriage was unconstitutional. To the contrary, in many cases the court has supported the definition. For example, in the Egan decision on marriage, former Supreme Court Justice La Forest addressed the definition directly when he 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 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.

Another example can be cited in the Halpern decision. In that case the Attorney General of Canada submitted evidence to support the traditional definition of marriage. His factum read:

Marriage has always been understood as a special kind of monogamous opposite-sex union, with spiritual, social, economic and contractual dimensions, for the purposes of uniting the opposite sexes, encouraging the birth and raising of children of the marriage, and companionship.

The decision we make on this legislation as a Parliament will have a profound impact on the country and the rights and freedoms that we so cherish. In 1999, which is not that long ago, only six years, I was in the chamber when the Liberal government pledged to use all necessary means to defend marriage. How quickly things change. Now it has made a complete U-turn and argues that the definition is unconstitutional. What will be next?

About one year ago Australia was facing the same crossroads with regard to marriage laws. The government there took a completely different approach than this Liberal government is taking. Despite pressure from those in favour of legalizing same sex marriage, Australian Prime Minister John Howard said he was going to push to define traditional marriage in law and prohibit same sex marriage in order to protect, as he put it, “a fundamental bedrock institution of our society which has contributed massively to our stability and to our success”.

In Australia the legislation passed, with the support of the official opposition, defining marriage as only the union of a man and a woman. In contrast, this Liberal government has decided to go down a different road which I cannot support. I will be voting against Bill C-38 in its current form. I hope all members of Parliament will think very carefully about what is at stake before they vote. Our collective decision may have very serious implications for future generations.

Should this legislation pass without amendments, we will redefine marriage in a way that most Canadians do not want in order to address equality rights. There is a much more reasonable approach that we should choose in order to address this issue. I will not be supporting Bill C-38 in its current form unless it is severely amended.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before I get to my notes I want to rebut a couple of points we heard in the impassioned speech made by the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

The member said there was no ability to appeal. We know that is not true. When the first lower court ruled, the Liberal government at the time had the ability to seek an appeal of that decision. The government chose not to. We are talking about choices. The member needs to be clear and completely truthful with the Canadian people. He says that the government wants to be respectful in this debate, so he needs to tell Canadians that the government chose not to seek to appeal those lower court decisions.

Further, I submit that there is no evidence, none, that if Parliament had indeed drafted, introduced, debated and passed legislation to protect the traditional definition of marriage the Supreme Court would not have upheld it without resorting to the notwithstanding clause. There is no evidence that this scenario would not have taken place. I want refute the hon. member's assertions while I appreciate the member jumping into the debate and adding to what he calls a filibuster. We have enjoyed the debate from all sides of the House.

I consider myself very fortunate to have a further opportunity to debate Bill C-38, legislation with such far-reaching implications for the institution of marriage and all of society. As the elected representative for Prince George—Peace River, I believe it is my responsibility and duty to clearly state my opposition to this legislation and my support for the traditional definition of marriage. Whenever possible I will continue to defend this position I have taken on behalf of my constituents.

We must be conscious that the actions we take with regard to this legislation to expand the definition of marriage to include same sex couples will have a tremendous impact on the future of Canadian society. We do not fully understand the magnitude of what this legislation will have done to our society 10, 15 or 20 years from now. What will we have left future generations to deal with? We do not have all the answers. Certainly there are many theories about how same sex marriage will or will not affect the future of our nation. We have heard many of those theories laid out here in this chamber in great detail during this debate.

However, what I would like to discuss today concerns what we do know. What we know is that this legislation poses a serious threat to religious freedoms in our country. Why do I know this? Because we have already seen it happen as a consequence of other legislation pertaining to homosexual rights.

Before I continue, I would like to unequivocally state that I believe homosexual couples should be afforded the same rights and privileges enjoyed by heterosexual couples. Of that, there is no doubt. However, same sex marriage is not a rights issue, despite what the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell has just said.

I will elaborate on this point later, but first let me say I am concerned that in its rush to address what it mistakenly calls a right, the federal Liberal government is placing in serious jeopardy the right of religious freedom, not that the government has not exerted great efforts to convince Canadians that priests, church ministers, rabbis or imams will not face prosecution or other legal sanction for the refusal to conduct marriage ceremonies for same sex couples.

This government and this justice minister emphatically deny that the congregations or members of churches, synagogues, mosques or other institutions of religious worship will find the activities of their place of worship beholden to this legislation. The government and some supporters of this legislation have dismissed these concerns as being driven by fearmongering, hatred and even homophobia.They allege that raising the possibility that religious freedoms would be compromised by the extension of marriage to same sex couples is a scare tactic on the part of those of us opposed to the legislation.

The justice minister has assured us that Bill C-38 will sufficiently protect religious freedoms. With all due respect, we have heard similar assurances before, most recently when Bill C-250, legislation designed to include sexual orientation under hate crime laws, was debated before this House during the last Parliament. At that time, many of us feared that priests, rabbis, imams and other religious officials would face accusations of spreading hatred or contempt simply by quoting from the Bible or the Koran, for example. At that time, this government told Canadians that would never happen.

The government claimed that a clause in Bill C-250 would afford sufficient protection to religious organizations and leaders and that they would not be punished simply for following or repeating the words of their faith. Bill C-250 received royal assent on April 29, 2004 and now, a little over a year later, Calgary Roman Catholic Bishop Fred Henry is facing two complaints filed with the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission for publishing statements which are “likely to expose homosexuals to hatred or contempt”.

When this same government tells us that a religious leader like Bishop Henry will be sufficiently protected under a clause in Bill C-38 that is similar to one that was supposed to protect him under Bill C-250, one could understand that we are extremely doubtful of that protection. Bishop Henry is not alone. In my home province of British Columbia a Catholic church congregation faces a complaint before the B.C. human rights commission because it refused to allow a lesbian couple the use of its parish hall for the couple's wedding reception. This is not fearmongering; this is reality.

I would like the justice minister to meet Bishop Henry face to face, or stand before the congregation of that B.C. church and attempt to reassure its members that Bill C-38 will adequately protect them. In fact, it is not only misleading to claim that religious freedoms will be protected under Bill C-38; these claims are not even supported by the Supreme Court of Canada.

At this juncture I would like to take the opportunity to remind members of the House and all Canadians that contrary to what the government would like the country to believe, the Supreme Court did not make a determination on the definition of marriage. The court not only refused to decide whether the traditional definition of marriage was a violation of the equality provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it made it perfectly clear that it is up to Parliament to decide. The Supreme Court told members of Parliament, our constituents' elected representatives, that we were to choose in this important social policy matter.

Further, the Supreme Court also ruled after examining the federal government's draft legislation, that its provision claiming to protect religious freedoms was outside the jurisdiction of the federal Parliament. In essence the Supreme Court said that the same clause the government is using in its attempt to reassure Canadians about their religious freedoms is in fact useless.

On that note, I would again like to emphasize the need for respectful and honest debate as we proceed debating Bill C-38. It is more than a little misleading for the Prime Minister and the justice minister to tell Canadians that the Supreme Court or the charter left them with no choice but to introduce this legislation to extend the definition of marriage to same sex couples. This is simply false. In fact, since our own Supreme Court has refused to rule on the definition of marriage, let us take a brief look at court rulings that have actually been made throughout the world in terms of same sex marriage.

In 1998 the European court of justice ruled “stable relationships between two persons of the same sex are not regarded as equivalent to marriages”.

In 1996 the New Zealand court of appeal rejected the recognition of same sex marriages despite that country's bill of rights which lists sexual orientation as a prohibited grounds for discrimination. The New Zealand ruling was appealed to the United Nations human rights commission. The commission ruled in 2003 that there was no case for discrimination simply on the basis of refusing to marry homosexual couples.

To date, no international human rights body and no national supreme court, including the Supreme Court of Canada, has ever found that there is a human right to same sex marriage. Same sex marriage is not a right. Freedom of religion, however, is a right, a right which I believe is very much in jeopardy. I am very dismayed that the government will not accept what is going on in the real world, that it will not accept the reality faced by Bishop Henry in Calgary and the very real fear of prosecution of religious leaders for whom performing same sex marriage is a violation of their faith.

I repeat that the Supreme Court indicated that the federal government's legislative assurances that priests, rabbis, imams and other religious leaders will not face prosecution are very empty assurances indeed. What will religious leaders face 10 or 20 years from now as a result of the actions we are taking today?

No matter how MPs choose to act, I ask that they follow their consciences and those of their constituents. I would also ask that they do not base their decisions upon the government's false claims that the legislation sufficiently protects religious freedoms. It does not, and that is one more reason why I remain vehemently opposed to Bill C-38.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the constituents of Edmonton East to this vital social issue of redefining marriage. I wish to make it very clear to my constituents that I oppose Bill C-38 and I will be voting against it.

In his January message to the Calgary diocese, Bishop Henry made some controversial statements that were subject to much criticism. This speech shed light on the interplay between constitutional law, religious tradition and judicial interpretation. Bishop Henry's recent pastoral letters to his Calgary diocese have been controversial in the eyes of some. These pastoral letters are grounded in the broadly held belief that marriage, as traditionally defined and the family as traditionally understood as two opposite sex heterosexual, married and most living together with children, remains the cornerstone of society. A principal reason for this is because it is through this form of family unit that children are naturally brought into this world and nurtured as they grow to adulthood.

His further view is that the family, as traditionally understood, is a more fundamental institution than the state and that marriage, as traditionally understood, is rooted in natural law, particularly relating to procreation.

All of these perspectives are debatable but are nonetheless phrased in such a way as to invite reasoned debate. It so happens that I agree with these particular views. Others may not, pointing to the number of single parent families or other forms of supportive relationships between adults and children. Others may wish to debate approaches to procreation through artificial means.

Underlining all debates are various perspectives as to how a healthy future for Canadian society is best assured. For those who advocate alternatives to the traditional family and traditional marriage, there is much evidence that both adults and children in society are not better off as a result of moving away from these models. Many breakdowns in social order that have been encountered over the last 30 years are traced by many to the breakdown through divorce in the security and stability once commonly associated with Canadian family life.

For example, the vast majority of divorces involve erosions of the wealth and lifestyle position of all parties, particularly children, since it is economically impossible for most people to maintain the same lifestyle when there are two homes rather than one. The astounding increase in the number of single parent families is directly correlated to increases in child poverty.

The vast majority of young persons in trouble with the law do not come from stable traditional family relationships. My point here is that it is one matter to advocate alternative to tradition but it is quite another to be able to provide empirical support that the erosion of tradition has made most people, and hence society, better off. I would like to think that this is what Bishop Henry's principal sentiment is.

It is against this backdrop of challenges to tradition, absent of empirical support as to overall societal betterment, that we might best examine the debate over same sex marriage. What we see time and again is the challenges to the long held traditions and beliefs, traditions and believes that have been shown over long periods of time to have benefited most people, lead to further questions and further challenges and less well-being for all.

For example, we now live in what may be regarded as an unacceptable age of moral relativism where the term “judgmental” is regarded as describing the heinous behaviour of expressing an opposing opinion. What is refreshing about Bishop Henry's views is that he reminds us that we do live in a world where moral choices are made and where some choices involve or should involve general acceptance as to the rectitude. In some areas there are no shades of grey in relation to what is right.

With the possibility of the opening up of the traditional meaning of the word marriage to include same sex couples, many consider that there is now a conflict between globally shared values and values that have been effectively legislated by Canadian politicians or judicially determined by persons with no accountability for the social consequences of such determinations.

One issue of moral relativism that has now risen in the context of the debate over the same sex marriage is that of the potential for Canadian constitutional protection for polygamy.

In another time and place, such an issue being raised would be regarded as comical, and surely the parties cannot be serious. Right now in Canada the parties are so serious that the federal Department of the Status of Women has issued an urgent call for persons interested in receiving funds to research and make recommendations on the issue of polygamy. One does not have to be a nationally or internationally respected scholar to receive such funding, though in these relativistic times it appears that one person's opinion is just as good as another's, particularly if an agent has funded one opinion and not the other.

Muslims in Canada, many of whom are opposed to same sex marriage on religious grounds, are less opposed to legislative recognition of polygamy since polygamy is permitted in Islamic law. Old-order Mormons are similarly supportive, as some may recall from news reports relating to the Mormon dominated town of Bountiful, B.C.

It is in the court of international opinion that Canada may find itself subject to a rather rude awakening. Already the Prime Minister was surprised to find that when trying to discuss trade relationships in India, he was compelled to first explain to the Indian population why Canada supported same sex marriage, a concept that again is contrary to the teachings of many Indian religions, such as Sikhism.

The Netherlands has encountered similar difficulties, being one of only two countries currently recognizing same sex marriages. The Netherlands has recognized same sex marriages since 2001. The other country that has recognized same sex marriage is Belgium. The Swedish government is preparing legislation to legalize same sex marriage, as is Spain, where same sex marriage is expected to be legalized as of 2005.

Like Canada, the Netherlands has many historic ties to other parts of the world, such as Aruba in the Caribbean which, since 1986 has been a separate entity within the Kingdom of Netherlands. After a Dutch lesbian married an Arubian lesbian in the Netherlands, they moved to Aruba and expected their marriage would be recognized there. Instead, their application to register their marriage was denied amidst significant degrees of social pressure that ultimately compelled the couple to return to the Netherlands.

Often forgotten in these relativistic debates is that there are globally held moral views that are broadly shared and that it is the height of arrogance to assume and presume that changes to these long held views would be accepted based on some sort of subservience to the enlightened thought of industrial nations. Imposing a relativistic view of marriage on such countries is certainly little more than the folly and fancy of those whose sense of moral self-absorption leaves them blind to the morality of the rest of the world.

I believe that Bishop Henry continues to have much of importance to say on the issues of marriage and family traditions. Perhaps the real issue prompting so many to comment concerns an interpretation of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms that is far too liberal for the majority of society to comfortably accept.

With Bill C-38 now before Parliament, the Liberals have decided not to have a free vote with the members and the NDP have decided not to have a free vote at all. Without a free vote in Parliament, the only way all Canadians will have the opportunity to have a say in the issue is in a national referendum.

I want to read again from a brochure that I issued in the last election which really confirmed my feelings since I was elected in 1997. I believe a person should put his or her principles and beliefs in writing. The brochure reads:

This election, you have the opportunity to end more than a decade of Liberal scandal, waste and corruption. I've been fighting for a more honest and accountable government since you first elected me as your Member of Parliament in 1997. There is much more to fight for now, including more secure health care, better living conditions for the less fortunate and for the preservation of traditional family values, including the definition of marriage. I pledge to keep up the fight.

At the same time, during that period we demand better for accountable government, better for access to health care, better for crime control and taxation relief, better for low income families and the homeless, and better for traditional family values.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I, like most of my colleagues on this side of the House and many on the other side as well, believe in the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

However, in the course of this debate those of us who support the traditional form of marriage have been told that to oppose Bill C-38 would be a violation of human rights and an unconstitutional violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is an attempt by the government to shift the grounds of this debate. The government does not want to debate the question of traditional marriage versus same sex marriage. It would rather focus on attacking its opponents as opposing human rights and the charter. This debate is not about human rights. It is a political, social policy decision and should be treated in that light.

Let me present several reasons why the issue of same sex marriage is not a human rights issue, and why defining the traditional definition of marriage would probably not violate the charter or require the use of the notwithstanding clause.

First of all, no internationally recognized human rights document has ever suggested that there is a right to same sex marriage. For example, in the universal declaration of human rights, the foundational United Nations human rights charter, almost all the rights listed are worded as purely individual rights, rights which everyone shall have or no one shall be denied. When it comes to marriage, the declaration says:

Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.

The use of the term “men and women” rather than “everyone” suggests that only traditional opposite sex marriage is contemplated. The subsequent international covenant on civil and political rights contains similar language. Attempts to pursue same sex marriage as an international human rights issue have failed.

In 1998 the European Court of Justice held that “stable relationships between two persons of the same sex are not regarded as equivalent to marriages.” In 1996 the New Zealand Court of Appeal rejected the recognition of same sex marriages despite the fact that New Zealand's bill of rights explicitly listed sexual orientation as a prohibited grounds of discrimination.

When the New Zealand decision was challenged before the United Nations Human Rights Commission as a violation of the international covenant on civil and political rights, the United Nations Human Rights Commission ruled in 2002 that there was no case for discrimination simply on the basis of refusing to marry homosexual couples.

In fact, to this date no international human rights body and no national supreme court has ever found that there is a human right to same sex marriage. The only courts that have found in favour of a right to same sex marriage are provincial courts in this country or state level courts in the United States.

If same sex marriage is not a basic human right in the sense of internationally recognized human rights law, is it a violation of Canadian charter rights? Several provincial Courts of Appeal such as the Court of Appeal in my province of Ontario have said that it is, and we still have not heard from the highest court in the land.

In the same sex reference case the Supreme Court of Canada declined to rule on the constitutionality of the traditional definition of marriage despite a clear request from the Liberal government to answer that question. All of the lower court decisions in favour of same sex marriage were dealing with common law, judge made law from over a century ago, not a recent statute passed by a democratically elected legislature.

It is quite possible that those lower courts may have found differently if there was a marriage act passed by this Parliament defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. So the whole discussion of the notwithstanding clause is an irrelevant distraction in this debate. There is simply no reason to use or discuss the use of the notwithstanding clause in the absence of a Supreme Court decision which indicates the traditional definition of marriage as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Canada has not done so. The Supreme Court has also said in various cases that statute law requires greater deference than common law.

Should legislation upholding the traditional definition of marriage be passed, a good argument can be made that the Supreme Court would give it considerable deference.

There are several examples of Parliament having passed statutes without using the notwithstanding clause that effectively reversed judicial decisions, including Supreme Court of Canada decisions, under common law. The courts have accepted these exercises of parliamentary sovereignty.

In 1995, Parliament passed Bill C-72 reversing the Supreme Court's decision in Daviault, which allowed extreme intoxication in a criminal defence.

In 1996, Parliament passed Bill C-46 reversing the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in O'Connor, which allowed the accused to access medical records of the victims in sexual assault cases. When this new law was challenged in a subsequent case, Mills, the Supreme Court wisely ruled, in a decision by Justices McLachlin and Iaccobucci, that:

It does not follow from the fact that a law passed by Parliament differs from a regime envisaged by the Court in the absence of a statutory scheme, that Parliament's law is unconstitutional. Parliament may build on the Court's decision, and develop a different scheme as long as it remains constitutional. Just as Parliament must respect the Court's rulings, so the Court must respect Parliament's determination that the judicial scheme can be improved. To insist on slavish conformity would belie the mutual respect that underpins the relationship between the courts and legislature that is so essential to our constitutional democracy....

There is good reason to believe that the Supreme Court of Canada, if it were eventually asked to rule on a new statutory definition of marriage combined with a full and equal recognition of legal rights and benefits for same sex couples, might well accept it.

The Conservative Party of Canada's position that the use of the notwithstanding clause is not required to legislate a traditional definition of marriage is supported by law professor Alan Brudner of the University of Toronto who recently wrote in the

Globe and Mail:

For all we know, therefore, courts may uphold opposite sex marriage as a reasonable limit on the right against discrimination when the restriction comes from a democratic body.

The notwithstanding clause should be invoked by Parliament only after the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on the constitutionality of a law. As yet, there has been no such law for the Supreme Court to consider, so there is no need to use the notwithstanding clause.

My leader has undertaken to bring in a reasonable, democratic compromise solution, one which is defined in statute that marriage remains the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, which extended equal rights and benefits to couples living in other forms of unions, and which fully protected freedom of religion to the extent possible under federal law. I believe that the Supreme Court of Canada would honour such a decision by Parliament and therefore I will be supporting the traditional definition of marriage.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today, in the debate on Bill C-38, I will speak as a member of the House of Commons. I have been an MP for almost 12 years, but of course there was a time when I was not an MP.

Bill C-38 is the type of issue where we wonder how we would react as private citizens. Unfortunately, we cannot avoid our duty as MPs. I would like to take a few minutes to try to explain what my colleagues and I are faced with in situations like this, in debates like this one.

Obviously, when I was a private citizen, I had a reputation, as I still do, of being fairly open minded as far as the debate on same sex marriage is concerned. In a free and democratic society, if rights are not taken from one group of people and given to another, or merely taken away just for the sake of doing so, I have no problem with it. That, in my opinion, is where we stand today. We want to give rights to certain members of society, without depriving any others of their rights. That is how I saw it when I was a private citizen, and that is how I see it now that I am the member for Saint-Jean.

It is, however, far from easy when a person becomes an MP, because then we cannot necessarily follow our own wishes and our own upbringing, or our own view of an issue. We cannot always react instantly, because now we are members of Parliament and represent others. And when you represent others, you have to take the trouble to see how they react to various issues.

I had a preconceived idea of what an MP did when I got here in 1993. I saw us settling major issues. I thought, first of all, that I could get up during oral question period and ask any minister a question.

I was told—and learned rather quickly—that that was not the way things were done. We have to comply with the traditions, customs and usages of the House of Commons or of Parliament. There is a party leader and a house leader, and they will often announce, “We have decided to take this or that approach today. And it is your turn, Claude. You will be the fourth speaker to rise”. Most of the time, things run like clockwork, except at certain moments. For example, at present, with the threat of an election hanging over us the atmosphere is a bit uncertain and tense. At times like that, it is always a bit more difficult.

That being said, I thought that as soon as one became a member of Parliament, one was negotiating or doing very important things all the time. However, I had not thought about the moral issues. This is another situation in which members find themselves in a rather more awkward spot. On account of our upbringing and surroundings, we have preconceived ideas. I said earlier that in regard to same sex marriage, my idea as a regular citizen was like that I hold as a member. However, sometimes it seems to me that we have huge responsibilities.

In my office on Mondays, I can be shown 1,000 cards from people who are against same sex marriage and 1,000 cards from people who are in favour of it. So what does a person do? One listens, of course, to the views of people in one's riding, weighing the pros and cons, and sometimes, they are almost equal.

It is easier in politics to go with the wind rather than against it. It is easier to row downstream rather than up. But I think one needs to show courage.

Bill C-38 concerns an issue about which the opinions of our fellow citizens should be taken into account. At the same time, though, we cannot ride roughshod over our basic principles and what lies deep within us. It is not easy.

Another debate will appear before us soon, concerning euthanasia and assisted suicide. We have seen suicides on television, almost live, and soon there will be people saying, “I am anxious for the members of the House of Commons to decide what will be done about that”.

That is another kind of subject about which, some Monday morning in our office, we will receive 1000 cards from people in favour of euthanasia and assisted suicide and 1000 from people who are opposed. So again we will be on the horns of a dilemma. However, we cannot evade our responsibilities.

I have also learned as a member that there are several decision making layers in a society. I thought that members of Parliament were the top layer. When I arrived here, I thought that my position as a member of Parliament was important.

I learned that we had a House leader, a leader, a whip who is sitting with us now—a very likeable guy, but who can be very strict when he must. We learn that all these people have a role to play.

I also understand that, in our society, there is a government, there are ministers and an executive branch. In fact, 308 MPs cannot be consulted every day on whether to do this or that. The executive branch has certain powers but the legislative branch has others. The 308 MPs in the House vote on bills, listen to their constituents, attend committee meetings and form opinions on bills. Then, often in accordance with their party line, they will vote in favour of some bills. Naturally, when the party line is crossed, there are problems, because that shows division within the ranks.

There is also the media, often called the fourth estate, because it wields a certain power. There is also the judiciary. I respect my colleagues who are lawyers. Many are here now, and I want to spare them. However, I have always thought that, in a free and democratic society, the elected representatives of the people are the ones who have to make certain decisions.

I have often criticized the government for letting debates concerning grey areas drag on, thereby forcing the courts to intervene. The courts will often take the lead. That is exactly the situation today. At least seven courts have ruled that the rights of same sex couples were violated by the definition of marriage and that such a definition had to include them.

The petitioners turned to their respective jurisdictions. However, it is extremely complicated: marriage is a federal responsibility, divorce, a provincial one, and so forth. It is somewhat confusing. However, people are now aware who to send cards to, in the knowledge that we shall soon decide. Sometimes I get cards, sometimes e-mails. I enjoy, at times, sitting down to read my e-mails. For every one I read, dozens more arrive in my inbox, faster than I can type or click.

Sometimes we find that a bit difficult. The members have perhaps not got to the end of their mandate, and now the courts have decided unanimously that there was a problem and that the definition of marriage had to be changed to include same sex partners. So it becomes very difficult for us MPs to ignore the court judgments. I am constantly saying that the MPs ought to be the ones to make decisions, but we cannot decide everything. Sometimes there are grey areas, and the courts are required to interpret them. That is what happened here, and all their interpretations have been in the same vein.

I must, moreover, admit that in Quebec the openness has progressed beyond that. We have adopted it, it has been recognized. If it has been accepted in Quebec, then Ottawa must follow suit.

From the legal point of view, we cannot go far wrong. If only one or two courts had made decisions, or if the Supreme Court had quashed the judgments made by the others, perhaps we would be in an awkward position of not knowing which way to go. But, legally speaking, we know exactly where we stand.

I have already referred to all the mail-ins that I get. In fact, some of the major institutions have got involved, including churches. This very morning at a breakfast meeting in the parliamentary restaurant we heard an excellent presentation by a woman involved in human research. Marriage goes back more than just centuries, even more than a millennium. The churches started to celebrate marriages around 900; before that there were none. Interaction between persons of the same sex has always existed, but without any legislation about it. Now, today, there is.

I will therefore, be consistent with myself. As an ordinary citizen, I would have said that, provided no one else loses any rights, I have no problem with others being given rights. I adopt the same behaviour as an MP. I believe that the people of Saint-Jean will follow my reasoning on this. I will, therefore, be voting in favour of Bill C-38.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to address this problem from a legal standpoint. Instead, I will try to show through anecdotes and personal experiences how important it is for us as a society to be as open-minded as possible because we have changed enormously over the last few years. However, I think we still have a long way to go.

In the early 1970s, women were beginning to be more aware of their rights, to become more familiar with them and even to have rights. It has only been since then that women have had the right to sign cheques on their own behalf, to have bank accounts in their own name, and to keep their name when they marry.

When I wanted to get married in the early 1970s, I was in love with a black man, and the priest at my church did not want to marry us. And there it was, discrimination. Society was not very advanced at that time in terms of intercultural marriages. I went to the curate to find someone who would perform the marriage, but the priest still refused. At the time, I thought this was terrible. Nowadays, when walking down the street, one meets many couples of different origins, who have children of different origins, and people are not offended any more as they were in the early 1970s.

In regard to the development of women's rights and human rights, I think that we have reached the point in our society where we should recognize the rights of people of the same sex who want to join their lives, share their lives, remain together and be happy.

To show how fast things go in life and how fast our ways of thinking can change, I remember a young woman for whom I was caring in the early 1980s. She had AIDS and was of Haitian origin. When her parents went to see her in the hospital, they did not go into her room because they thought she was possessed by the devil. They thought the devil had invaded her and that was why she was sick. Nowadays, if this young woman were still alive, I am sure that her parents would go into her room and would be able to embrace her rather than transmitting their embraces through me to her.

It is extremely difficult to realize that, in 2005, we still have questions about an issue like the one before us today. This should have been resolved a long time ago. A decade ago, homosexuals had the courage to come out to themselves. Now, they have the courage to come out to their co-workers and their families. It was not so easy in the past. If we go back 30 or 40 years, it was extremely difficult. No politician, man or woman, dared come out of the closet. It took years for this to be possible, for such people to be accepted and respected in our legislatures. Initially, people were respected because their sexuality was a secret. When they came out, at first, it caused an uproar.

Now, we know and respect our colleagues, no matter what their sexual orientation, which is essential. However, if they command such respect from us, we must go further. We must give them the opportunity to lead a full, rich life, a life similar to that led by every other human being. As my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert said earlier, everyone is entitled to happiness. There is nothing conditional about it.

If we take the trouble to think a little about our own families, friends and acquaintances, I am convinced that even my colleagues who want to vote against Bill C-38 know someone who is homosexual, someone who may want to marry and be happy.

Do these people have to give up their right to happiness because their representatives have said no? Will they be embarrassed or self-conscious?

As my colleague from Joliette has said, and said so well, I do not want to have to tell my grandson or granddaughter that it is a bad choice to be homosexual because they cannot do the same thing as others can. I know that many here have a great deal of respect for the hon. member for Hochelaga. I would be pleased if he were to find the love of his life and decide to marry. I do not think there is anyone in this House, regardless of his or her beliefs, who would dare turn down an invitation to his wedding. I think we would all accept and would all turn up with presents.

If we can recognize that right for a person we know well, why not for others? Why can we not recognize it for all of society? It is a right. We have a right to be happy and to choose the person we want to live our life with.

Let us think this over calmly. Could all members of this House take the time to ask themselves whether they want to have to say to their sons or daughters, “No, you are gay so you cannot get married”. We say that older people have the right to marry, even without children. I know a number of seniors who have married. The purpose of marriage is supposed to be procreation, having children. But when somebody is 70, 75, 80—or like the last one I saw, 88—and wants to marry, let us not pretend it is to have children. We must not be ridiculous about it. They did not get condoms as presents, either.

As a society, we need to make an effort to be a little more open. There is much talk of open-mindedness, but for many that is just empty talk. I find that hugely regrettable. As a government, as parliamentarians, we need to meet the needs of our fellow citizens, our constituents.

I too have received cards from people saying they are against same sex marriage. I responded to every single one. To my great astonishment, I received dozens of calls from people who said they had not written to me. Their names and signatures had been used on the cards. When they called me, they said, “Madam, why did you write to me? I have never spoken about this. I am not against same sex marriage”. Some people would have us believe that the majority is against same sex marriage, but that is not true.

In any event, Quebeckers are a little more progressive than that and I am sure most Canadians are prepared to accept same sex marriage.

In the meantime, I hope my colleagues will think twice before voting against this bill. It would allow us to take a stand as compassionate human beings. This has been done successfully elsewhere and I think it can be successful here as well.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to represent the will of my constituents and speak in opposition to Bill C-38, the civil marriage act.

I will begin by summarizing my position, the position of someone who has lived all his life in the north, someone who has actually argued constitutional and charter arguments in front of the courts in Alberta and someone who has immediate family members who are both in the homosexual community and in the treaty and Métis communities.

This is why I will not support any legislation that infringes upon the rights of any Canadian. I believe strongly that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms must be respected and the rights of all minorities must be protected. This is why I support the traditional definition of marriage.

The institution of marriage was created for the purpose of procreation and the nurturing of the children of the union. Our children are our future and must be protected.

While we respect the rights of others, we must also look to the future and guard our future generations. A stable home with a mother and father is the foundation of our civilization and although it may not always be attainable, I would argue that we should work toward this environment as it is the best environment for our future generations.

My logic is this. All words have three parts: first, the word itself; second, the meaning that describes the word; and third, the rights and obligations that flow from the word. The word “marriage” is no exception to this. It is simply that; a word that describes and identifies a group of individuals within our society. In this case, the group it describes is a relationship between one man and one woman in a state recognized contract.

It is my position that the rights and obligations that flow from that word need to be extended to other words to protect rights of minority groups throughout Canada.

I would submit that these other groups should receive not only the rights of married couples but also the obligations of married couples.

As the Leader of the Opposition states, we must respect all Canadians regardless of sexual orientation or other differences and all couples who apply for solemnization of their relationship should receive the respect and the rights and obligations of married couples.

I also believe that we should send a clear message of protecting minority rights to Canadians and protect not only married and same sex couples but also common law couples after a certain period of cohabitation. Some provinces even recognize this period of cohabitation now and recognize common law rights but not all provinces do and each province is different.

Each of these three groups should be defined individually because, let us face it and admit the facts, the descriptions are different between a man and a man, a woman and a woman and a man and a woman. Yes, even common law couples who have not formally solemnized their relationship before the state should also be afforded the same protections. All of these groups should have the same rights and obligations under the law and should be respected equally in all aspects of the law that flow from our natural state.

In terms of protecting rights, it is also my belief that as members of the House we must protect the rights of those who entered into marriage on their expectation of what that term means. Protecting rights is a dual obligation. Just as with every right comes a corresponding obligation, receiving a right can sometimes infringe on others' rights and expectations. Rights and respect work both ways.

If we want our beliefs respected, then we must respect the beliefs of others. With mutual respect comes the end of bigotry, hate and prejudice. That is the Utopia that I seek for all Canadians.

The Conservative Party of Canada is allowing a free vote in Parliament on this matter. We respect the supremacy of Parliament. I believe that we should respect the will of Canadians while at the same time protecting the rights of all minorities.

In my constituency of Fort McMurray--Athabasca, located in northern Alberta, I received less than 10 responses in favour of same sex marriage and over 1,000 responses asking to maintain the traditional definition of marriage.

The Leader of the Opposition has taken what I believe to be a reasonable compromise position on this issue, which is in accord with the views of the 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.

The Conservative Party wants to create the status of a civil union to recognize the identical rights of all peoples. Religious institutions would be explicitly protected. We would protect public officials from reprisal if for religious reasons, as we heard from my colleague earlier, they feel they must refuse to perform same sex marriages.

The Conservative Party represents the only middle ground position on the debate from any political party. Canada's law should reflect the priorities of Canadian society, while protecting the rights of minorities. The Conservative position does this. This compromise respects all sides of the debate.

This debate is about that. This debate is about mutual respect. This Conservative Party has proven that we respect both sides of the issue and we respect all Canadians equally.

Now it is time for other members of this House to do the same and to respect our position.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak against Bill C-38 on behalf of the constituents of Selkirk—Interlake.

Today I want to talk about how the Liberals have been misleading the House and Canadians on their commitment to the charter. They say that they want to defend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but then they sit on their hands when it is being threatened by provinces forcing marriage commissioners to resign or surrender their religious freedoms and freedom of conscience.

The Liberals say that they care about these rights, but they are unwilling to take action to correct this grievous violation. This is happening in Manitoba as we speak. It has also happened in Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

The province of Manitoba informed all marriage commissioners that they had to perform same sex marriages and if they refused, they would have their licences revoked. Right off the bat, 11 marriage commissioners resigned. Two more refused to quit and have taken this matter before the Manitoba Human Rights Commission.

I want to challenge the government to explain to the Canadian people why it is still failing to defend the individual religious rights and freedoms of conscience that it promised to defend.

Just last fall, on December 3, 2004, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada said in response to my question on marriage commissioners:

--clearly something like this is inappropriate as we would see it. That is why we went before the Supreme Court of Canada to ask what its interpretation would be on our reference and to see whether freedom of religion would be protected.

Clearly, that member has forgotten the statement because more recently he has not acted concerned about the inappropriateness of the firing of these commissioners at all. Instead, the parliamentary secretary said:

--if any additional specific protections for religious freedom are desired in the terms of civic marriage officials, commercial provision of services, hall rentals, et cetera, they must be made by the provinces and territories.

On the one hand the government wants to pretend it is defending the Charter of Rights of Freedoms and has shouted slogans at every opportunity. On the other hand it is unwilling to take action to ensure that a province is not trampling upon the individual's charter rights.

One day the charter is all important to the government, but then it turns around and wants to pick and choose which part it wishes to protect. That is the height of hypocrisy, even for this government, with perhaps the exception of the Prime Minister claiming to be the great crusader against government corruption after turning a blind eye for a decade to Liberal corruption as the finance minister.

Yes, these are provincial civil matters, but these are people who have their rights guaranteed to them under the charter, which is a federal responsibility. It is up to the federal government to stand up for these people and ensure that they have the opportunity to access their freedom of religion or freedom of conscience.

Not everyone has a particular religion, but they do have strong personal beliefs and do not agree with the approach being taken by the government. Therefore, I ask the government one more time to take a stand for individual rights and freedoms in response to these provinces. It has the responsibility to oversee what the provinces are doing and can ensure that they are enforcing what we have as a charter.

We have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada, yet the government has not stood up for these individual's rights. The freedom of religion and the freedom of conscience of these individuals are being lost because the government is failing to address decisions made by the Governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, decisions that have forced the resignation of marriage commissioners unwilling to perform same sex unions because of their religious beliefs and conscientious objections.

I want to ensure that the federal government will stand up for the rights of individuals. We cherish our charter in the country. We believe strongly in the freedoms that we enjoy as individuals. Yet the federal government has not come to the aid of those individuals. It should be standing side by side with them, defending their rights to freedom of religion, freedom of expression and freedom of conscience and ensuring that their voices are heard by the Manitoba Human Rights Commission.

The government should tell the province of Manitoba and the other provinces that are doing this to take a solid step back and allow individual freedoms to reign.

One of the two people who are fighting this in Manitoba is a constituent of mine, Kevin Kisilowsky. He got his marriage commissioner licence from the province of Manitoba because he wished to sanction marriages outside of a church.

He is a Christian who has an outreach ministry for outlaw biker gangs as well as a youth ministry. He is trying to reach out. The people he is trying to help do not belong to a church. He is not affiliated with any particular religious organization, but is a Christian. In order to legally marry people who decide to accept his performance of Christian ceremonies outside of organized religion, he needs to have a licence.

When Kevin applied for his licence he informed the Government of Manitoba that he only wished to perform Christian ceremonies through his outreach ministry. He was told to go ahead with his application and that he would be put on a private list. Unfortunately, Kevin is now in a situation where he refuses to perform same sex marriages and therefore his entire licence is being revoked.

Essentially, I want the government to explain why it has not supported all the other commissioners in Manitoba. I want the government to make sure that they can still perform traditional marriages. This does not prevent the Province of Manitoba from hiring other marriage commissioners to perform same sex unions.

Let us defend the rights of individuals who are born and raised in Canada and also those individuals who came to Canada because we have such a great charter. Let us not trample on those rights.

I want the government to explain why it has not supported the individual rights and freedoms of religion and conscience, or is the claim by the Prime Minister and Minister of Justice that freedoms are protected just another Liberal promise made, Liberal promise broken?

Let us talk about what equality is. The Liberals have been saying that the compromise proposed on this side of the House would not satisfy equality requirements under the charter. This is just not true. There are many examples where we distinguish between genders and age groups for good reasons in our society because there are differences between them. It does not mean that all people are not equal but that society recognizes differences between people's situations.

An example of this is that young people have to wait to vote, drink, join the military, drive, form contracts, et cetera. Women and men are also treated differently although they are still equal within our society. When women received the vote and achieved greater equality with men they did not change the definition of woman or start calling women, men. They simply recognized women as persons and citizens entitled to equality with their male counterparts.

All that is really being asked is that the traditional definition of marriage be maintained in law. The equality of treatment for same sex partners can easily be achieved with another institution that recognizes their uniqueness within society. The law can deal with both the traditional definition of marriage and civil unions while recognizing the reality that they are innately a different type of relationship.

Canada decided in the past to be accommodating to religious and ethnic minorities. The RCMP has recognized the need to allow ethnic groups and religious groups to retain their symbols of faith while wearing the RCMP uniform. This kind of religious tolerance dates back to 19th century when Great Britain welcomed Sikh soldiers into its military and the Queen granted them the right to wear turbans because of their religious significance in their culture. This is an example of where our societies have grown to recognize that we can be different in beliefs and how the state respects those beliefs but still be equal as the laws are applied.

I cannot imagine anyone wanting the state to force them from their calling or chosen profession because of the state's narrow approach accommodating equality. The same would be true for an agnostic or atheist. The state should respect their opinions and not impose its will upon another.

However there is no reason that the state cannot recognize all of these diverse people through legislation, including those who want to retain the traditional definition of marriage at the state level out of respect for its origins. That would be the path in our law to a truly diverse and multicultural society, one that allows different viewpoints to be accepted within the law and recognizes cultural uniqueness.

I think all members of the House should take a good, hard look at the legislation for what it really is. It imposes upon all Canadians one kind of social institution and changes an institution that existed long before it was entrenched in our common law. This does not respect the differences in faith, cultures or multicultural society Canadians value.

The Liberals want to impose one value over all of us and ignore our differences. To me that sounds a lot like discrimination we are hoping to prevent by granting same sex couples equal treatment under the law.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to speak Bill C-38 on same sex marriage.

This is my third time speaking on this subject, but only the first time in the debate on Bill C-38. I had the opportunity to speak on a motion introduced by former MP Svend Robinson. I spoke a second time against a motion introduced by a Conservative member. Today, I will reiterate my position for the third time because the Bloc Québécois and its leader have announced that there will be a free vote on Bill C-38. So I am expressing my own views now, although my position is shared by most of my colleagues. The Bloc Québécois does not really have any party line on this issue, but we have noted a number of things that I want to mention.

The debate concerns the protection of both equality rights and the right to freedom of religion. In fact, Bill C-38 successfully accommodates these two fundamental values enshrined in both the Quebec charter of rights and freedoms and the Canadian charter. Consequently, while we support legislating a definition of civil marriage that includes both heterosexual and homosexual couples, we also support the idea in the bill that religions not be obligated to perform same sex marriages, be they in churches, synagogues, temples or mosques. This is quite appropriate. In fact, we are referring here to two completely separate areas or levels of debate. The debate in the House must focus on the fundamental rights of all our citizens.

In a church, the debate is about values, and that is completely different. In my riding, a number of practising Catholics have come together around a priest, Raymond Gravel, who is well known because he is on television quite often. They are engaging in a debate within the church to make religious marriage available to same sex couples. They contacted me to get my support in this debate. I told them that it was not at all my place to participate in a debate within the Catholic church. This is something for Catholic officials and the people who practise this religion.

My role, as a parliamentarian and the member for Joliette, is limited to the civil level. Is the definition of marriage that currently exists in the legislation consistent with the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? In more than eight cases, the courts have decided that the traditional definition of marriage as between partners of the opposite sex is discriminatory under these charters. This is not a question that was asked by Bill C-38. This bill is aimed simply at complying with eight decisions that have already been handed down in eight courts in seven provinces and Yukon, including the Court of Appeal of Quebec.

If Bill C-38 did not exist, or even if the bill were eventually defeated, that would not change the fact that in seven provinces and Yukon, same-sex couples would be entitled to marry because the federal government has not appealed any of these cases.

In this situation, our only way to protect the traditional definition of marriage, if I can say it this way, would be to use the notwithstanding clause and, consequently, for all of us to realize that, in order to have a definition like that, a provision of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms had to be violated.

In addition, the government asked the Supreme Court four questions in regard to this debate. These are the four questions. The first was: does the federal government have exclusive jurisdiction to define marriage?

The second question pertained to the charter. Does the charter allow religious groups not to perform marriages they feel go against their religious beliefs? Is the definition of same sex marriage constitutional? Is the traditional definition of marriage, in other words the union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, constitutional?

I remind the House that the Supreme Court replied to this reference from the government. I might add a little aside that the fourth question was asked by the current Prime Minister a few weeks before the last election campaign. It was clearly just a manoeuvre for strictly electoral purposes to put off a decision that was should have been made by Parliament. It is interesting all the same to see that, despite all these delays, we are on the verge of an election we must make a parliamentary decision that cannot be ignored.

The Supreme Court confirmed the federal government's exclusive legislative authority with regard to the definition of marriage and, clearly, the provinces' exclusive legislative authority with regard to the celebration of marriage. To this end, although we agree in principle, we have a small problem with the fact that Bill C-38 already states that officials of religious groups will have the right to refuse to perform marriages between same sex partners. We agree in principle; it is a question of values. However, this falls under provincial jurisdiction. With Bill C-38, the government is treading on the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces in this regard.

The court's main decision was that same sex marriage was consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I also remind the House that, in answer to the question relating to religious groups, the Supreme Court determined that freedom of religion protects religious groups from having to perform same-sex marriages.

Finally, with regard to the fourth question, the court declined to comment, in order not to create confusion. It determined that there was without purpose, since the appeal courts had already ruled on the question. The Supreme Court determined that answering the fourth question would not further the issue. In fact, if the government had wanted to verify the validity of this question, it could simply have appealled previous decisions. As I mentioned earlier, eight courts were involved.

In short, the Supreme Court found that extending the definition of marriage is consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Furthermore, the lower courts have already told us that the traditional definition of marriage, meaning the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, violated the charter. So it is quite appropriate for Bill C-38 to reinforce the decisions of the provincial courts of appeal.

Finally, Bill C-38 is in keeping with the overall spirit of the decisions by the Supreme Court and the lower courts. With a much broader definition—one more respectful of the rights all citizens now recognize—this bill now allows marriage not only between heterosexuals but also between homosexuals.

As the Supreme Court has reaffirmed, churches are not bound to perform certain marriages. This reconciles the right to equality for all citizens with the right to religious freedom, whether under the Canadian charter or the Quebec charter.

The idea in all of this is to reaffirm clearly that discrimination is not acceptable in Canada nor in Quebec. I am the father of three children, two still quite young, and I do not know their sexual orientation. Nevertheless, I would not want them to be victims of discrimination.

By passing Bill C-38, we would be sending a very clear message that in Canada, and in Quebec, discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation or political or religious affiliation is not acceptable.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, again it is a pleasure to stand in the House in opposition to Bill C-38. It is a pleasure not just to speak against the bill but also to speak knowing that the majority of my constituents support me in this stand against this legislation.

It is worth repeating for the sake of my constituents that, for the record, I am opposed to changing the definition of marriage to include same sex couples. I firmly believe that marriage is exclusive to the union of one man and one woman. It is only through the coupling of the opposite sexes that children can be produced, children who are the past, present and future of this country, and no form of social engineering and no form of trying to change that can. It takes a man and a woman to have a child.

Furthermore, I strongly believe that marriage is fundamental. It 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 the opposite sex is one of the core universal features of marriage across cultures and religions around the world. In Canada and elsewhere, the identity of marriage has always been seen as a bond between man and woman.

This was the opinion expressed by Katherine Young, a University of McGill professor of comparative religious studies and ethics. As a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I had the benefit of hearing at first hand Professor Young's testimony. On February 20, 2003, Professor Young told the committee:

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 have already pointed out earlier in my remarks.

Traditionally, marriage was defined as the union of one man with one woman with the expectation that they would procreate and guarantee the survival of society. The product of this union, children, creates or establishes a family. While there are many purposes to the family, that is, providing lifelong relationships, shelter and food to the members of the family, the main purpose is the means by which society maintains its existence.

Procreation in marriage has to be considered its most essential function. Civilizations of the world have come to embrace this fact in recognition of the benefits it brings to all those involved and to 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 had the issue decided by the courts.

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--or I should say MPs who should be accountable to the citizens of this country--should have the final say on the matter of defining marriage.

We should not be limited in our debate. The government's attempt to shut down debate is an affront to the principles of democracy. That is exactly what the government is trying to do. It is trying to shut down debate on Bill C-38. As I said, it is an affront to the principles of democracy that should be governing the House. It is an affront to the members of the House, who have been sent here by their constituents to support or to oppose the legislation that we debate today.

I can tell the House that I am not surprised by the Liberal government's tactic. I have been a member of the House for close to five years now. As stated earlier, I was a member of the justice committee, which was tasked in 2003 to review the issue. We travelled across the country at great expense to the taxpayers of the nation.

We listened to those expressing views on both sides of the issue. We heard from church ministers. We heard from university professors. We heard from constitutional lawyers. We heard from the gay community. We heard from same sex couples. We heard from REAL Women. We heard from average Canadian citizens who expressed both opposition and support for changing the definition of marriage.

On June 17, 2003, while the House was in recess, the former prime minister stated that, despite all of our committee work, findings and recommendations, his government fully intended to make same sex marriage legal in this country. In the process, he completely negated the opinion of literally thousands of Canadians and rendered inadmissible the well reasoned and well researched findings of academics, clergy and those within the profession who made their presentations to our committee.

He did so despite the current Prime Minister and the current Deputy Prime Minister's support for the following motion that was passed in the House in 1999:

That, in the opinion of this 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.

Further, as pointed out repeatedly in the last few weeks, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, our Deputy Prime Minister, stated on not only one occasion but a number of occasions that it was:

--not necessary to change well-understood concepts of spouse and marriage and deal with any fairness considerations the courts and tribunals may find.

Those were her words just a few short years ago. The Deputy Prime Minister, when justice minister, said:

--that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages.

Those were her words. That was her promise. That was her pledge here in this House. We all know just how true to her word she is and how true to its word this government is: promise made, promise broken.

As I pointed out in this House late last month when I last stood to debate Bill C-38, the Conservative Party has brought forward proposed amendments to the legislation to provide full recognition of same sex relationships as possessing equivalent rights and privileges. We have also proposed amendments to protect religious freedoms in the recognition that currently Bill C-38 is not adequate.

In a discussion paper issued by the Department of Justice in November 2002, it was recognized that Parliament could choose to underscore the division of church and state in Canada by making a clearer distinction between the role of Parliament and that of religion in the area of marriage. I want to quote directly from that discussion paper. It states:

To accomplish this...all legal effect could be removed from marriage, leaving marriage exclusively to the religions.

For the record, I am not advocating this measure. I raise this point of discussion to demonstrate how narrow we have been in our debate on this issue. I raise it also to demonstrate how, if the government really wants to, it can better protect religious freedoms in regard to marriage.

I would refer all members of this House to the particular discussion paper that was issued by the Department of Justice two and a half years ago. I recommend that members read pages 19 and 20 regarding questions that need to be decided in Canada.

The committee did a lot of work. The committee came forward and it did a lot of work. We believed at that time that the government did everything it could to shut down the committee.

I see that my time is up, so I would implore all members on all sides of this House to listen to their constituents, and not only to the person who sits in the leader's chair, but to all their constituents.

If members would do this, and if party leaders would not force their members to vote party lines by making this a free vote as our leader of the Conservative Party has done, I am confident that the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others, would be retained.

[Gurmant Grewal, Conservative, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise again on behalf of the constituents of Newton--North Delta to participate in the debate on Bill C-38.

The so-called same sex marriage bill has generated considerable interest in my riding, with record numbers of people contacting my office to voice their concerns about the Liberal ploy to redefine marriage. To date, over 15,000 people have either written or called asking me to oppose Bill C-38. They want me to vote against this proposed legislation and do everything possible to maintain the traditional definition of marriage.

I happily tell each and every one of them that I listen to my constituents and that they can count on me to say no to same sex marriage.

The Liberals have attempted to frame the same sex marriage debate as a human rights issue. According to the Prime Minister, opposition to same sex unions is now, ipso facto, an example of hatred and intolerance. Public opinion surveys, however, show that a majority of Canadians are opposed to same sex marriage.

An Environics Research Group poll conducted for the CBC surveyed 1,203 Canadians between March 26 and March 30 and found that 52% of Canadians disagreed with the plan to change the definition of marriage to include couples of the same sex and that only 44% agreed with the Liberal plan. Interestingly, the disapproval jumped to 65% among Canadians born outside our borders.

Does the Prime Minister really want to suggest that the majority of Canadians are bigots?

One dictionary defines a “bigot” as a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own. I know who I think better exemplifies bigotry.

What about the rest of the world? In 2001, the Netherlands opened civil marriage to gay couples and, in 2003, Belgium followed suit. In both countries there are some areas related to adoption or marriage of non-nationals of those countries that still make them slightly different from opposite sex marriages.

By far, the vast majority of European jurisdictions have gone the route of recognizing civil unions, domestic partnerships or reciprocal beneficiaries rather than abolishing the opposite sex nature of marriage. In doing so, they are following the lead of Denmark, where such partnerships were introduced in 1989. Through 1995, less than 5% of Danish homosexuals got married.

As of February 2005, Massachusetts is the only U.S. state to recognize same sex marriages. The states of Vermont, California, Maine, Hawaii, New Jersey and even the District of Columbia, however all offer benefits to same sex couples that are similar to benefits received through marriage, such as civil union, reciprocal benefits or domestic partnership laws.

During the 2004 elections, all 11 states where the issue of same sex marriage was on the ballot, regardless of whether they were Democratic or Republican, voted overwhelmingly for constitutional amendments restricting marriage to a man and a woman.

If same sex marriage is a fundamental right, why have only two countries on Earth recognized it? Are the Liberals seriously suggesting that countries like Denmark and Sweden, which recognize civil unions for homosexuals but refuse to change the traditional definition of marriage, are bastions of bigotry and repressed sexual attitudes?

This House, including the current Prime Minister, voted to uphold that definition of marriage in 1999 and in the amendments to Bill C-23 in 2000, with the Deputy Prime Minister, who was then the justice minister, leading the defence of marriage from the government side.

This was what the Deputy Prime Minister said in 1999 in her eloquent defence of the traditional definition of marriage:

We on this side [of the House] agree that the institution of marriage is a central and important institution in the lives of many Canadians. It plays an important part in all societies worldwide, second only to the fundamental importance of family to all of us.

The definition of marriage, which has been consistently applied in Canada, comes from an 1866 British case which holds that marriage is “the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”. That case and that definition are considered clear law by ordinary Canadians, academics and the courts. The courts have upheld the constitutionality of that definition. The Ontario court, general division, in Layland and Beaulne, recently upheld the definition of marriage. In that decision, a majority of the court stated the following:

--unions of persons of the same sex are not “marriages”, because of the definition of marriage. The applicants are, in effect, seeking to use s. 15 of the Charter to bring about a change in the definition of marriage.

The then justice minister said:

I do not think the Charter has that effect...Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages. Marriage has fundamental value and importance to Canadians and we do not believe on this side of the House that importance and value is in any way threatened or undermined by others seeking to have their long term relationships recognized....

I support the motion for maintaining the clear legal definition of marriage in Canada as the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.

That was the Deputy Prime Minister speaking as justice minister less than six years ago. Nothing she said then is out of date. All that has happened is that several provincial courts have overruled the longstanding common law definition of marriage, but the Supreme Court itself has still not addressed this issue despite a clear request to do so from the Liberal government.

We do not believe that on the basis of provincial court decisions, which the government refused to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, a fundamental, centuries old institution should be abolished or radically changed.

We believe that marriage should continue to be what it has always been, what the courts and the government accepted it to be until a very few years ago: an institution which is by nature heterosexual and has as one of its main purposes the procreation and nurturing of children in the care of a mother and a father.

In conclusion, marriage has been one of the fundamental organizing principles of human society since history began. It is important to the future of our society because it provides the best social structure within which to bear and raise children. There has never been a time in history when major civilizations or religions granted same sex relationships the same rights and status as they did heterosexual marriage.

We should not change these kinds of fundamental institutions lightly or easily, and I do not believe that the government has demonstrated that there are compelling reasons to alter this central social institution. I will therefore be following the wishes of my constituents and will vote against Bill C-38. I believe in the traditional, common law definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Grey—Bruce—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak about Bill C-38 on behalf of my constituents of Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound. To say that this debate has garnered a lot of attention would be an understatement. It is contentious and divisive on both sides of the House as well as within society and even within families.

My office has processed thousands of emails, letters, faxes and phone calls from across my riding. I commend my constituents for making their voices heard. More than 95% of the people I have heard from are united in their message and in their convictions. Traditional marriage must be preserved and protected.

While I am pleased that the decision has been placed in the hands of parliamentarians, many people across my riding have displayed their displeasure at this issue even coming forth at this time. They continue to tell me there are many more important issues we should be spending our time on such as corruption in government, health care, corruption in government, the BSE crisis, corruption in government, the high taxes Canadians are forced to pay, and did I mention corruption in government.

I do not believe a decision such as this should be made by a handful of hand-picked, bias, backroom Supreme Court judges, especially when they were appointed by a corrupt government that knew these appointees leanings on this issue. We were elected by the people and we are here to represent them. It should be this House that ultimately has the final vote on this issue, after consultations with the people we represent.

As I see it, this is a debate about fundamental family and social values. In my opinion there are two issues that have to be addressed in any bill on same sex. The rights of gays as determined by the courts must be adhered to, including their right to unite in some form, and traditional marriage defined as one man and one woman must be enshrined. That can be done very simply by allowing civil unions or similar terminology.

I will not oppose same sex unions. However, I will oppose same sex marriage. There is a big difference. Traditional marriage is between one man and one woman. That is the true definition.

I have met with a number of people from the gay community in my riding, with parents who have gay children and with siblings and friends of gays to discuss the issues surrounding this legislation. Most of the people I have met with were in favour of my views and my stance. As I said, most told me that as long as their rights are protected as stated by the courts and they are able to be with their partners, they agree that calling it a civil union or something equivalent is acceptable to them.

We have been forced to address this subject. While I realize there is no perfect answer that will satisfy everyone, I believe we can offer a compromise that would win the support of the vast majority of Canadians who are looking for some middle ground.

On the one hand there are people who believe the equality of rights of gays and lesbians should rule over rights to religious free faith, religious expression or multicultural diversity. On the other hand there are people who think that marriage is a fundamental institution, but that same sex couples can have equivalent rights and benefits and should be protected.

My position is not unlike that of my colleagues and our leader in that it is based on a very solid foundation and time tested values. We believe that if the government presented the option of preserving marriage while recognizing equal rights of same sex couples through civil unions or other means, this is the option that most Canadians would choose.

Marriage and the family based on marriage are the basic institutions of our society. We should not change these kinds of foundational institutions lightly or easily. I do not believe that the government has demonstrated that there are compelling reasons to alter this central social institution.

At least one of the major purposes of marriage historically has been to provide a stable environment for the procreation and raising of children. This does not mean that other kinds of relationships are not loving and valuable. Nor does it mean that heterosexual married couples who cannot or do not have children are less married than anyone else.

What it does mean is that marriage as a social institution has as one of its goals the nurturing of children in the care of a mother and a father. If we change the definition of marriage to end the opposite sex requirement, we will be saying that this goal of marriage is no longer important.

Those of us who support traditional marriage have been told that to amend the bill to reflect the traditional definition of marriage would be a violation of human rights and an unconstitutional violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is nothing more than an attempt by the government to shift the grounds of this debate. If the rights of gays and lesbians are adhered to, as I stated earlier, this debate is not about human rights. It becomes simply a political, social policy decision and should be treated as such.

There are those who would suggest that our leader would use the notwithstanding clause. However, this is also an irrelevant distraction to the debate as our leader has made it very clear that he would not use the notwithstanding clause. There is no reason to use or discuss the use of the notwithstanding clause in the absence of a Supreme Court decision which indicates that the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional.

I would like to thank my leader for allowing our party, including the members of the shadow cabinet, to have a free vote on this side of the House. A free vote means everyone. Not just backbenchers can vote the way their constituents want them to.

The Prime Minister says his backbenchers can vote their conscience, but cabinet ministers have to vote with the government. Does that mean cabinet ministers do not have a conscience? Those cabinet ministers who do not vote the wishes of their constituents or who do not listen to their conscience are a disgrace to the profession of parliamentarian.

I ask the Prime Minister 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 be truly satisfied that the democratic process has prevailed.

While I am on the topic of the Liberal government, it is funny but not surprising that the Deputy Prime Minister, then the justice minister said in 1998, “Let me state again for the record that the government has no intentions of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages”. What a difference six years makes. It is just another in a long line of deceptions.

I believe the legislation the government has introduced will increase intolerance in our society. Examples of this 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.

In Bill C-38 only clergy from religious institutions are recognized as needing religious freedom protection. While I agree that churches should have the right to that choice, I also believe that this will be challenged in court and clergy will be forced to perform same sex marriages.

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.

Making my decision to stand up for traditional marriage goes back to my being raised with Christian values and to my dedication to family values. I am not ashamed to stand up for these values. I believe marriage should continue to be what it has always been, between a man and woman, and that is an institution which is by nature heterosexual and has as one of its main purposes the procreation and nurturing of children in the care of a mother and a father.

I encourage all members of Parliament to do as I plan to do, to oppose Bill C-38.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to participate in the debate on Bill C-38. It may not be my only intervention. I know many members are anxious to put their views and thoughts on the record, but I want to put mine on the record in the 10 minutes that I have.

First, I would like to say that this exercise could have been and should have been constructive. Certainly it has been quite democratic up to this point, but it has not been as constructive as it could have been or should have been. In my view, the main reason for that is the House has been pushed into a box by the courts of this country. I am not pleased with that. My public statements have been somewhat tame in that regard. My remarks now might be a bit more sanguine given that I have some protection and immunities here in the House, thanks to our Constitution. The courts have made decisions which have forced the House and the government to deal with this matter with a timing and in a procedure that is not at all helpful.

The bill refers to the subject of civil marriage. It is not really civil marriage. In fact that is wishful thinking. Perhaps the government wishes that the bill did deal with something called civil marriage. In the body of the bill the words “civil marriage” do not turn up; they appear only in the title.

In fact I wish that the bill dealt with the concept of civil marriage. Unfortunately, because of what has happened over the last two or three years, the bill deals with straight simple marriage. Would that over history Canada would have evolved a format for marriage that is different from what it is now. I understand that France has a format for marriage that separates civil marriage from marriage in churches and in groups and between individuals. It seems to work there. In any event, we are stuck with the current process and calling this bill the civil marriage act cosmetically does not do the trick.

About two years ago the matter of same sex marriage was referred to the House of Commons standing committee on justice and human rights. It was a large task. The committee embarked on its study of the subject area hoping to craft a resolution that would be suited to our Constitution, suitable to colleagues in the House, suitable to Canadians and to all segments of Canadian society. We began that somewhat naively but in good faith. I even recall spending what I would call overtime, meeting on Monday evenings with some colleagues in an attempt to hammer out a concept which would be acceptable to the committee and the House. That concept moves toward this concept of civil union or civil marriage.

In any event, one unhappy day as I recall it, suddenly the Ontario Court of Appeal made a decision in a piece of litigation in Ontario and set us all back severely. As a result of that decision, the government was pretty much forced to accept that the legal definition of marriage was just that, only a legal matter. Having invested all of that time, I was a little bit upset by that.

However, what I call the blackboard exercise of developing a solution is still out there, possibly. It is still out there as something we might do. However, the courts have all moved ahead and the current framework in which we are operating does not allow much wiggle room, certainly in the context of this bill.

We were working on this at the committee level and certainly around the House at the time the court made its decision. The court ruled that the current laws governing traditional relationships did not accommodate equitably relationships which were not opposite sex.

We all have friends or family members who reside in non-traditional relationships, couples that are same sex. They are often good friends and almost always good people. Most of us in the House really have wanted to try and do the right thing.

As I said, the courts have viewed this as purely a legal issue, just a legal constitutional issue. I realize that the courts and the legal fraternity almost always worship at the grail of the Constitution and the charter and tend to view all of our society through the eyes of the law. I regret that because in my view in this case a fix is going to have to allow us to view this matter as sociological, as well as legal and religious, et cetera.

What happened after the court threw its grenade at us is what is happening now. The government decided it would not appeal the provincial courts of appeal decisions. Then the government decided to make a reference to the Supreme Court. While the court did not rule directly on the constitutionality of the traditional definition, it did accept that the legislation put forward, at least the main part of it, the change in the definition of marriage, was constitutional.

In my view this is not purely a legal issue. I want to put some stress on that. The many witnesses who came to the justice committee usually made that point, that there is a lot more going on here than just the law, the Constitution or the charter.

I am speaking for most of my constituents when I say that they view this as partly sociological in the sense that the merging of opposite sex relationships with same sex relationships indiscriminately will delink opposite sex marriage from its societal role. It is a dual role actually, one where it is the foundation for the survival of the species and the other where it is a framework for nurturing children produced by the marriage union.

There is also a religious perspective. While that is not everyone's cup of tea in Canada, most Canadians have some religious perspective that they bring to their life on earth. Coming with the religion is also the cultural perspective. I represent a riding where there are many different cultural perspectives.

I say that in the sense that for centuries now, cultures and societies which call Canada home have nurtured families based on opposite sex union. Culturally and religiously they just do not accept the way the courts have decided to change this framework. I will simply call it a non-fit.

Not all of my constituents feel that way and that is probably true right across the country. I have a good number of constituents who are content with the way the bill is drafted and want to see progress on this file, but I must accept and I am informing the House that the vast majority of my constituents by a country mile are not in support of the bill. I am reflecting that very clearly here today.

Are there other ways to fix this? Are there other ways to do it? I have indicated earlier that I think there are. Will we have time to do it? Will we have the ability to do it in the current constitutional framework? I am not sure that we will.

I read a letter this morning. Most of us get letters from time to time on this issue. This letter is from Nevin, a Manitoba resident. He says:

We are not against same sex-union but, from the standpoint of faith, cannot as a matter of conscience support having the definition of marriage altered.

I will close by saying that I will be voting against Bill C-38.

Presence in Gallery

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue this afternoon with second reading of Bill C-38, the civil marriage bill. This will be followed by consideration of Senate amendments of Bill C-29, the patent bill, and Bill C-12, the quarantine bill.

We will then return to second reading of Bill C-43, the budget bill, and eventually the third readings of: Bill C-23, the HRDC bill; Bill C-22, the social development bill; Bill C-26, the border services bill; and Bill C-9, the Quebec development bill.

Tomorrow we will begin with Bill C-43. If this is completed, we will then return to the list just given.

Next week is a break week. Since it happens to coincide this year with Passover, I would like to take this opportunity to extend to Canadians of the Jewish faith best wishes on this holiday.

After today there are 35 sitting days for the House before its scheduled adjournment on June 23. The government hopes that the House will be able to complete all stages of Bill C-38 and Bill C-43 by that date, which means that the bills will have to go to and be reported from committees in time for report stage and third reading in that limited time. That is why we have given priority to these bills in order to arrive at the supply votes.

The government is obliged to designate by that date 6 of those 35 days as allotted days or opposition days. Since we do not face the logistical and timing difficulties that I have just described vis-à-vis these two major bills, it seems logical and sensible to ask the House to deal with those second readings before proceeding with business such as opposition days, which are not followed by subsequent legislative stages.

If the members opposite would not be so sneaky in trying to change the Standing Orders, in fact, we could perhaps have the kind of dialogue that the hon. member is suggesting we have.

Civil Marriage Act

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to join in this debate. A lot of members in the House say in their preambles that it is a pleasure to join in the debate, but I do so sincerely because as the member for Cape Breton--Canso I stand here understanding how the people of my constituency feel on this particular issue. I stand today to represent their views.

I think it would be insightful to look at the constituency I represent. For the most part, my constituency is rural. The towns of Glace Bay and Port Hawkesbury stand as the largest urban centres, but the greater population comes from the smaller communities, many of them coastal communities. Many people in my area work in the fishery as harvesters and processors. They farm. They work the forests. A fair number work in manufacturing. I am confident that the people I represent are honest, good, hard-working Canadians who believe in family and in their community.

As a candidate prior to being elected to the 37th Parliament in November 2000, I made the commitment to my constituents that before voting on any change to the traditional definition of marriage I would consult with the community and I would allow their opinion to weigh heavily on my position.

Upon being elected, I was determined to honour that commitment. In the fall of 2003, I undertook an extensive communications strategy with constituents so as to determine their thoughts and their views on this particular issue. A communication piece was delivered to every household in my riding, outlining what I believe was a very balanced presentation. The piece addressed both the pros and cons of the essence of the issue. A survey was included that sought opinions on same sex benefits, on civil unions, on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and of course on same sex marriage.

The results were very revealing. Over 82% of the respondents voiced their strong opposition to any change in the traditional definition of marriage.

I met with various groups, with clergy, college students, sexual diversity support groups and community leaders, and I hosted town hall meetings. I also received an overwhelming number of unsolicited representations. I recall being at numerous community events. I remember walking through the mall with my children. I remember being in arenas throughout the constituency. People were very forthcoming and forthright in coming to me to offer their opinions.

To put into context just how mobilized my constituents became on this issue, I can think back to another very significant event that Canadians experienced in recent years. While our previous Prime Minister worked to stake out our country's position on the American initiative into Iraq, I remember vividly how Canadians were seized by the potential of Canada going to war. I remember the great number of interventions I received on that particular topic.

Even the response to our position on Iraq pales in comparison to how engaged my constituents became on the issue of same sex marriage and changing the traditional definition of marriage. What I heard loud and clear from my constituents was that although traditional marriage is not perfect it remains the single best relationship in which men relate to women, in which women relate to men and in which children relate to parents.

When entering into marriage, a couple joins in an institution which is based on four pillars: first, each is of a certain age; second, they are not family; third, marriage is only between two people; and fourth, marriage is between one man and one woman. To compromise any of these principles, do we not compromise the institution?

I want the House to know, unequivocally, and I want it stated on the record that there is absolutely no desire on the part of the people I represent to deny the rights of any individual. They truly believe in equal rights and benefits of all central institutions to same sex couples. What they do believe is that marriage is an historic religious union and that altering this institution would be a great disservice to Canadian families. Marriage predates states, governments and charters and it has served us well over time.

What I also heard from many people was their genuine concern about any tampering with the institution of marriage. Many believed that the government bill was well-intentioned, however they saw it more like a social experiment, one which has not been embraced in other parts of the world which might have considered it. Their sense was that the government was moving too fast to alter this age old institution without the benefit of research or study. They questioned whether the change in this definition would truly provide the intended outcome, that being an attitudinal change on the part of some citizens.

Being armed with the confidence that I understood the concerns that were being articulated by my constituents, my position on the issue was even more solidified in November 2003.

During his acceptance speech at a national leadership convention, our new Prime Minister stated just what he would expect from his caucus MPs. He said that what we needed to be successful as a truly national federal party would be members who represented the interests of their constituents to Ottawa, not represent Ottawa's interests to their constituents. Had there been any doubt in my mind or any reservation in my conviction, there was no longer.

I fully appreciate the reality of today's family living in an ever-changing global world. Many families are forced to do far more with much less. The race to keep up is driven by greater needs and greater expectations. The pressure this pace puts on society and brings to our communities is sometimes daunting.

One positive outcome from these stresses is that we are seeing an increased interest by families to exercise traditional values. We see families returning to their spiritual roots, witnessed by increased numbers in many churches across the country. We see Canadians reaching out to draw strength from their traditional institutions.

The concerns that I have heard from my constituents are shared by a vast majority of Canadians, that there is a belief that we should treat all Canadians equally but not necessarily exactly the same. That is why, when called, I will be voting against Bill C-38.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the House will soon be asked to vote on whether to send Bill C-38, the civil marriage act, to committee for review. The bill was tabled on February 1 and has been debated in the House ever since. Yet the essence of this legislation, the extension of equal access to civil marriage to gays and lesbians while at the same time respecting religious freedom, has been known for close to two years now. It was in July 2003 that the government referred its draft bill to the Supreme Court of Canada.

During this period, all aspects of the bill were discussed in depth, in the House, earlier in the standing committee which travelled across Canada and heard from over 300 witnesses, before the courts in eight provinces and territories, before the Supreme Court of Canada in its reference hearing, and in the media and other public forums. From a democratic perspective, I am pleased that there has been so much involvement by so many on this important issue.

The bill is a short one with two main substantive provisions, one extending access to civil marriage to same sex couples and the second acknowledging and respecting religious freedom. Yet, with all this discussion and debate, the opposition's main arguments against the bill continue to be anchored in three assertions which are simply mistaken. First, that it is open to the House to re-enact the opposite sex definition of civil marriage without using the notwithstanding clause. Second, that Parliament can ensure that the equality guarantee can be secured through some form of civil union. Third, that the bill threatens religious freedom.

These assertions are simply not grounded in fact or law. I fully acknowledge that the legal and constitutional principles involved here are complex. I understand that there are strong feelings on all sides of this debate and they deserve to be respected. I appreciate that many Canadians are still struggling with the idea of change to the central institution of marriage.

It is essential that parliamentarians and Canadians clearly understand, from a legislative and judicial point of view, what choices are and are not open to us as well as the costs and implications of those choices for our values and for our future. We may not agree at the end of this exercise on what is the best choice to make, but we should at a minimum all agree on what the choices are.

Today, I wish to explain to the House why the compromises suggested by the opposition are not valid options and what real options are available to us.

The opposition has suggested that there is a compromise available here that would mean legislating the traditional opposite sex definition of marriage once again and offering the same rights and privileges of marriage to same sex couples but through civil unions and not civil marriage. We heard it once again this morning.

This compromise is not well-founded. It is based on two assumptions that are wrong in law. First, the compromise offered by the opposition to re-enact the opposite sex requirement for marriage is technically possible, but only if Parliament is willing and able to use the notwithstanding clause. Second, even then it is unlikely that the law it proposes would survive a court challenge as Parliament simply does not have the authority to bring about the compromise that the opposition proposes.

Let me begin with why the notwithstanding clause would have to be used to re-enact an opposite sex definition of civil marriage.

The opposition asserts that somehow it is still open for Parliament to re-enact the traditional definition of marriage, to override the equality provisions of the charter, to override judgments in eight jurisdictions, to override the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, without using the notwithstanding clause. However, this is based on a leap of logic by the opposition that because the Supreme Court did not directly answer the fourth question put to it by the government, Parliament is now free to decide the issue any way it wants.

I should add, parenthetically, that the fourth question was included in the reference as to whether the traditional definition of marriage was compatible with the charter. It was included to allow those who wished to argue that position to do so.

As to the question we put and supported, whether extending civil marriage to gays and lesbians was compatible with the charter, the court answered that same sex marriage was not only consistent with the charter, but flowed from it.

As well, it is incorrect to say that the Supreme Court of Canada did not answer the question asked in its reference without also stating that when the court came to question four, the answer was moot. For the court to have answered it would have been unprecedented because we already had binding decisions in eight jurisdictions. We already had an earlier answer by the Supreme Court to the effect that same sex marriage was compatible with the charter. Thousands of couples had already married and had acquired protected rights and, as the court said, the government had indicated its intention to go ahead with this legislation.

Moreover, what has to be appreciated here is that nothing in the Supreme Court's decision overruled the binding decisions in eight provinces and territories finding that the opposite sex definition of marriage was inconsistent with the fundamental guarantee of equality in the charter.

It is true that the opposition refers to the eight decisions striking down the traditional definition of marriage as being “only lower court decisions”. Somehow it is suggested the notwithstanding clause is invocable only if we have a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which, in this instance, we also have.

This grasp of the issue is not only mistaken, it is contrary to the rule of law. Where a law has been found to be unconstitutional, the only way to legislate is either to remedy the unconstitutionality, which is what we are trying to do with our projet de loi, or to overrule that court decision by invoking the notwithstanding clause. That means that Parliament would be publicly stating that it will pass the law, despite the fact that it is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court of Canada is not the only court in the country that governments are bound to respect under the rule of law. Decisions of courts in eight jurisdictions, holding that restricting civil marriage to opposite sex couples is unconstitutional, are also binding under the rule of law.

The opposition is not free to somehow mislead Canadians or the House that Parliament can ignore these court decisions and re-enact the same law that has already been declared unconstitutional.

I am not the only person who is concerned that members of the House and the public understand what are the valid options open to us. An open letter was signed by 134 law professors, representing every law school in the country, making this point and asking that the political debate be carried out with a full appreciation of the options.

Moreover, the opposition would have us believe that the changes to the definition of civil marriage have come about because of a lack of action on the part of Parliament. The problem with this theory is that Parliament had already legislated the opposite sex definition of marriage. It was this federal legislation, not only the common law, that was considered by the courts in Quebec and not just, as I said, the common law definition of marriage. Yet the parliamentary statute was found unconstitutional by the Quebec Court of Appeal in the same way that other provinces found the common law to be unconstitutional. Therefore, it is simply not true to say that the courts acted without guidance from Parliament.

Opposition members also assert that the 1995 Egan and Nesbit decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, which they claim remains the only commentary on marriage in any Supreme Court decision, is what is relevant here. The point here is that the question of marriage was not even before the court in the Egan decision. That case dealt with whether the Old Age Security Act was unconstitutional in not including common law, same sex partners. Only the recent marriage reference decision of the Supreme Court of Canada talks about marriage in Canadian law.

It is simply not true that the courts ruled on common law and not on federal legislation. Nor is it true that the government did not strenuously defend the traditional, opposite sex requirement for marriage before the lower courts. However, once the courts declared the opposite sex requirement to be unconstitutional, it was a matter of fidelity to the rule of law and as Attorney General, we were obliged to respect those decisions, as the House is obliged to do.

With regard to the matter of civil union, the opposition neglects to mention that both the British Columbia and Ontario Courts of Appeal have already looked at the possibility of a civil union alternative and said that it would be less than equal and so, unconstitutional. Therefore, even if Parliament adopted this approach, we could not guarantee equality for same sex couples because we simply do not have the constitutional jurisdiction in that regard.

As the opposition acknowledges, civil unions are within provincial and territorial jurisdiction. Leaving it to the provinces and territories to try to solve this question would inevitably result in a patchwork of 13 different civil union schemes that would not guarantee equality.

Let me turn finally to the issue of religious freedom. The opposition would have us believe that Bill C-38 somehow imperils the exercise of religious freedom. The point is that Bill C-38 is organized not only around the principle of equality, but around the protection of religious freedom as well. It is extensively referred to, both in the preamble and in the substantive provisions of the legislation.

Freedom of religion is portrayed also as a weaker sister to equality and it is asserted that wherever courts are tribunals are faced with a clash between equality rights and religious rights, equality rights will always trump religious freedom. Such an assertion ignores both the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada reference and many other charter decisions. The Supreme Court has consistently indicated that freedom of religious must be fully respected.

If additional specific protections are desired in terms of civic marriage officials, commercial provision of services or rentals of church halls, they would have to be added to provincial and territorial laws. I raised this issue recently with my provincial and territorial colleagues. Ontario has already responded, recently passing a new bill extending further protections for religious freedom. Quebec already has that in its civil code.

In conclusion, Bill C-38 fully respects religious freedom guarantees of the charter, and this government has made a commitment to the importance of protecting those religious freedoms, and as I--

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we look forward to two things: forming government and defending the definition of marriage in the country.

I have the distinct privilege to stand and speak on behalf of my riding. The bill is definitely not a priority for Canadians. We saw that on the Hill just a few weeks ago when 15,000 to 20,000 individuals came to say to Canada and to Parliament that we should be careful in what we do, that changing the definition of marriage is an experiment that has not gone well wherever it has been introduced, only in two other countries in the world, and we should tread very carefully when it comes to this.

People are angry and upset at the bill, and rightfully so. They do not buy what the Prime Minister is claiming with regard to the bill being all about human rights. We all believe that human rights should be protected but this is not about human rights. This is about changing a definition of an institution that has been cherished for many generations in this country. In fact, it predates the state itself.

This could have major consequences, not only for the institution of marriage but for children, for religious freedoms and for society itself.

I will not be supporting the legislation and I will do everything in my power to stop it. I will do that on behalf of the people of Yellowhead and I will do it as aggressively as I possibly can. I believe that most members of our caucus are feeling the same way about this issue.

What is marriage? Marriage is an inclusive union between one man and one woman and it has been recognized as that for thousands of years. It is an institution that predates the modern states and is recognized in most of the world's cultures and religions. Marriage serves as a bond between a man and a woman and between the generations. It provides the ideal environment for raising children. Marriage is the pillar of our society and, like I say, we trample on it at our peril.

Contrary to the Liberal claim, same sex marriage is not a fundamental right. The Supreme Court of Canada did not recognize it as such and gave it back to this Parliament to decide and to deal with. In fact, no nation or international court has recognized same sex marriage as a basic human right. Marriage as a union of a man and a woman has stood the test of time and place and many Canadians are willing to extend benefits and, I should say, are willing to extend benefits to other kinds of domestic partnerships. Most people in the House recognize that as well but they recognize marriage as something distinct. It is a unique bond or covenant between a man and a woman.

The other aspect to this legislation is religious freedoms. I also oppose the bill because the redefinition of marriage threatens religious freedom and conscience. Religious freedom is already under attack in this country and I think that we can expect worse to happen if we pass the legislation.

The government says that religious officials would not be compelled to perform same sex ceremonies. That is very generous of it but this is only one of the many possible impacts on religious freedom flowing from the redefinition of marriage. That is the law of unintended consequences of this legislation. In some of the provinces, marriage commissioners right now are being compelled to affirm same sex marriages or lose their licences.

The bill would not protect these officials because it cannot. The solemnization of marriage is under provincial jurisdiction. It is not under federal jurisdiction. Therefore we should not be saying that we can protect something that we cannot.

It seems like the government's deputy House leader thinks that it is fine for marriage commissioner's to lose their licences. I do not believe that should be the case at all.

What else can we expect? Churches or temples may be forced to rent out their halls for same sex marriage receptions, which is exactly what is happening in British Columbia. A branch of the Knights of Columbus has been taken to the B.C. Human Rights Commission for refusing to rent out its hall for a same sex marriage reception.

The charitable status of religious institutions in which same sex marriages may be performed could be revoked. Religious schools or charities may be forced to hire and retain employees of same sex couples.

Last but not least there is a concern that religious officials may one day be ordered by the courts to sanction same sex marriages and allow them to be performed in our churches, mosques and temples.

The bill includes a declaration claiming that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs. However, this declaration carries no legal weight because the solemnization of marriage, as I have said, falls under provincial jurisdiction.

Freedom of religion and conscience is the lifeblood of an open society. Bill C-38 moves us further away from that standard, posing further harms to religious freedoms in Canada. As I have said, marriage commissioners are already being fired. Charitable status may already be taken away, potentially, and the outlook for religious officials and institutions to maintain their teachings and practice on marriage remains uncertain. For these reasons, too, I oppose the redefinition of marriage and this bill.

Let us move forward and look at what else might happen. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the traditional definition of marriage. In fact, it handed that back to this Parliament, which is the highest court of the country. We should do our due diligence. That is what I hope we are doing here today. Seriously concerned about this, as members of Parliament we must stand up and represent the people of Canada on this important issue.

The Prime Minister and the justice minister have turned their backs on marriage. I can tell members that we will not. A Conservative government would introduce legislation to preserve the traditional definition of marriage and would also extend the same federal benefits enjoyed by married couples to same sex unions. Our approach represents a reasonable compromise that is accepted by the majority of Canadians.

Marriage as the union of a man and a woman is a cherished institution in Canada and around the world. Not all marriages are perfect, of course, but on balance marriage is an institution that richly benefits men, women, children and society. That we would trample it and tamper with it, I would suggest to this Parliament, means that we would be on dangerous grounds and into a very dangerous experiment.

Redefining marriage would have numerous consequences. Some of them are already with us. Others will surely emerge with the passage of time. Among them is likely to be the ongoing erosion of religious freedoms in Canada.

This actually happened not long ago in Australia. Australians had the same sort of debate. The issue was in the courts and then the government was under pressure to act. There was a groundswell of support for traditional marriage in that country, just as we are seeing today. In response, the Government of Australia passed legislation preserving the definition of marriage. This government and this Parliament can and should do the exact same thing.

I urge all members of Parliament to carefully consider what is at stake. I urge my colleagues not to rush headlong into the reinvention of marriage, making our country just the third in the world to do so. I urge the Prime Minister to show true respect to his cabinet ministers and their constituents by not binding them on this bill. I urge Parliament to affirm marriage and to protect freedom of religion in Canada.

It is very important to think of the Prime Minister and some of his words over the last year, when he talked about coming in and reforming this House by giving the people of Canada a stronger voice through parliamentary reform. That is what he talked about. He ran in the last election pledging that he was going to do that when he became the Prime Minister of this country. He has been Prime Minister for a year. It took this Prime Minister six days to break his promise with regard to whipping his backbenchers into a whipped vote. Our past prime minister was notorious for whipping his caucus, but with him it was a month or two before we saw that sort of thing start to happen. It took six days in this case.

Here we are on same sex marriage, one of the most important issues that we have faced as a Parliament and as a nation. We have a Prime Minister who claims to have democratically reformed this House so that the people of Canada truly have a voice in this place, yet he stands in his place over there and whips his cabinet on an issue like this. It is not respectful to his cabinet. It is not respectful to the people of Canada those members represent. It is an abomination to this House on an issue like this.

I would implore him to change his mind and I ask this House to change its mind with regard to allowing this piece of legislation to go through.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the second reading debate on Bill C-38, the same sex marriage bill. To say that this legislation has caused a controversy or generated public interest would be an understatement.

I want to be very clear at the beginning of my remarks and say that I will not be supporting the bill. I support the definition of marriage that has worked in our society for centuries, that being that marriage is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.

I said that the legislation has created a great deal of controversy, which actually surprises me somewhat. If I had been asked 15 years ago when I was in Parliament that this would be the number one social issue facing us at this time, I would have been quite surprised. I would have said to those individuals who would want to change institutions within our society that marriage was definitely off their radar screen.

I remember, when I was the parliamentary secretary to the justice minister, some groups contacted us wanting to know why the federal government was still keeping divorce records. Inasmuch as divorce is a federal matter, the Government of Canada did keep statistics on divorces. The groups felt the government was wasting time and effort.

The implication was very clear. In their own mind marriage was basically irrelevant. Whether one was married, unmarried, living together, or whatever, it was irrelevant, so they wanted to know why we were keeping divorce statistics. I did not share that particular view of marriage and I certainly do not share it today. I thought it was perfectly within the government's right to keep that information. That is why I am somewhat surprised that this is the number one issue for those individuals who want to change institutions within our society.

I support the institution of marriage as it has been comprised for centuries in our society. It is one of the basic institutions of our society and is the foundation upon which we have built our culture.

I noted with interest when a government minister asked why the churches were getting involved in this issue. I was fascinated by that remark. It is a fact that well over 90% of the marriages conducted in this country are conducted under the auspices of churches and other religious institutions. That alone would make one think that they might have a passing interest in something that they almost exclusively handle in Canadian society.

Marriage is not something in which the churches and other religious institutions just became involved over the last couple of months or years. For centuries the Churches have taken an interest in this, have refined this and have made rules and customs on this. I am not overstating the fact that churches have had an interest in marriage for thousands of years. It seems to me that alone would mean they have a vital interest in marriage since we are trying to alter the definition that has worked for them.

When I talk about this subject I want to make it very clear that I am not in the business of trying to deny rights to other individuals. I have no problem with legislation that is designed to ensure people are treated fairly in society and treated with respect.

Members can check the record back in the late eighties when the legislation was introduced to protect individuals from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation. I remember speaking in this Parliament, one of the first speeches I am sure I made, and made the point that within the federal jurisdiction it would be a terrible thing if somebody was, among other things, fired from a job because of his or her sexual orientation. I could never support anything like that and I welcomed this Parliament moving ahead on that.

At the same time, though, I have to say with respect to this issue, that does not mean that we have to start altering the institution of marriage which has worked well and has been a part of our society for so many years. It is not necessary, in my opinion, to change that.

This position was overwhelmingly endorsed by the House of Commons in 1999. It was not just the members of the Conservative Party or the Alliance Party or the Progressive Conservative Party. They were not the ones who were standing up. It was members of the Liberal Party. Hon. members can check it out. In 1999, members of the Liberal Party said that they would defend the traditional definition of marriage, that they would not be introducing legislation that would threaten that and that they endorsed that. There was no suggestion among the members of the Liberal Party that somehow people's fundamental rights were being violated or taken away from them because indeed they were not.

This is just something that the Liberals have come up with in recent years, and it is very disappointing that it is the case. It was something that was supported in the last Parliament and something that people would expect when they went to the polls. If people were to ask if their member supported the traditional definition of marriage, they would see from the record in 1999 that their member did. They were all in favour of it. I am sure this has come as a rude awakening to some voters across this country that this was not something that they particularly believed in or something on which they could not have changed their minds.

I also am disappointed by the position of the federal cabinet. I cannot believe there is unanimity among the approximately 40 cabinet ministers. I know of no other group of 30 members of Parliament in which there is unanimity on this particular subject.

Even the members of the New Democratic Party who are, of course, no defenders of traditional values in this country, but even within that group one member dissented on this.

The members of the federal cabinet do not have the privilege of being a part of a political party that gives them the freedom to do as they believe they should do on a subject like this, which is one of the reasons I am so proud to be a member of this political party, the Conservative Party of Canada, where on an issue like this we are truly given a free vote, which is fair on moral issues and issues that touch people deeply like the marriage issue.

I have been asked on a number of occasions whether we have, as a federal Parliament or the House of Commons, the right to legislate in this area. I say, yes, of course we have. It is very clear that while the solemnization of marriage is within the jurisdiction of the provinces, divorce and marriage are clearly within the federal sphere.

We have not legislated on the marriage issue in the federal sphere because we did not think it was necessary, quite frankly. We have used the common law definition, which has been around for centuries, on the subject of divorce. We have altered the rules and laws with respect to divorce several times over the years but we have gone with the traditional definition. Now that has been challenged in the courts and therefore it is perfectly within our rights to come up with a federally legislated definition of marriage. I believe it will withstand court challenges because the Constitution gives us this right to do that.

The first step in this debate is to defeat the bill. I want people to know they can count on a Conservative government. We will introduce legislation, as we have the right to do, that will protect the traditional definition of marriage.

This has created quite a bit of interest and quite a bit of controversy. Mr. Speaker, you have seen me stand in the House on a number of occasions presenting petitions from the people of Niagara Falls, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Fort Erie, the greater Fort Erie area, including Ridgeway and Stevensville. Hundreds of people took the time to forward these petitions and I have been proud and pleased to present them on their behalf. They want to see that traditional definition of marriage preserved and I am prepared to tell them that when the Conservative Party becomes the government of this country, and that day will be much closer, we will do what the Liberals said they would do in 1999.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there is so much that could be said on this subject, a lot of studies that could be quoted, a lot of profound statements from philosophers and theologists, and other realms as well.

I will quickly recap the last time I spoke with respect to an amendment on Bill C-38, the same sex marriage bill. I talked about how we need to support traditional heterosexual marriage, first of all, for the sake of the children. They are the most vulnerable members of society. If there are competing rights, I remember Margaret Summerville, the ethicist, saying that one ought always to defer to the weaker and more vulnerable. Instead of talking about adult dependent relationships, as tends to be the case in respect of those advocating for same sex marriages, we tend to forget about the children, the more vulnerable members of society, and the progeny or the offspring that come out of a biological heterosexual union.

I made referred to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Article 7 says that it is the right of children to know and be cared for by their parents, obviously a reference to the biological progenitors of the children who have come into this world.

In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the children shall be a primary consideration. That is in article 3 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Somehow that gets overlooked and too easily swept to the side when in fact it is the children that this debate should be about in a major and significant way. It should be in their interests that we defer.

I was not only for the sake of the children but also for the sake of free speech. I was beginning to make the point of the imposition there would be in schools and places of learning and so on, if there were to be the legalization of same sex marriage.

With the legalization of homosexual marriage, it is my deep concern that every public school in the nation will be required to teach homosexual coupling as the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. We have already seen examples of such pressures that schools face in your end of the country, Mr. Speaker, in Surrey, B.C., where a school board in fact had to fight through the courts to retain its own curriculum in respect of this particular issue.

I am concerned, as buttressed by this very case in point in Surrey, that even in conservative regions in the country textbooks will have to depict man-man and woman-woman relationships and stories written for children as young as elementary school or even kindergarten, and may have to give equal space and emphasis to homosexual unions. How can a child fresh out of toddlerhood comprehend the meaning of adult sexuality? The answer is that they cannot, nor should they have to, and nor should we be forcing that on them at that very young and tender age.

Among those changes will be “diverse” textbooks that will include same sex couples as role models, even for little children. To refuse such content will be considered “discrimination” and those dissenting school boards will be taken to court.

Furthermore, the provincial teachers' federations will sue on behalf of any teachers involved. Increasingly, activist liberal courts will model themselves after the Supreme Court judges, and those judges at the lower court levels are pretty likely to rule in favour of such plaintiffs.

It is not only for the sake of children and free speech but also for the sake of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. Does anyone honestly expect Canadians to believe that the Liberal government will protect their rights in respect of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience when only a few years ago the Deputy Prime Minister as well as the Prime Minister assured Canadians that they had no intention of changing the definition of marriage, and in fact promised to take all necessary steps to protect marriage?

The Liberals have already blatantly broken the promise that they made some time ago, also they reiterated a couple of times here. They have broken those promises of protecting freedom of conscience. We have seen what has happened to marriage commissioners across the country. In my province of Saskatchewan, in Manitoba and in various other provinces those individuals have been sidelined. They have been imposed upon. There is an attempt to violate their conscience.

I ask members gathered here today why should Canadians believe that the Liberals will protect those freedoms of religion and conscience when they have broken promises in respect to that already?

Dr. Janet Epp Buckingham says:

We have been given bland assertions by the Justice Minister that religious freedom will be protected with the redefinition of marriage but there is absolutely no evidence of this...Already we have seen marriage commissioners forced to resign in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba over this issue. Mayors have been forced to resign in Newfoundland. A human rights complaint has been heard against the Knights of Columbus for refusing to rent their hall for a lesbian wedding reception....This is just the beginning of the types of religious freedom violations we anticipate from the redefinition of the institution of marriage.

She goes on to say:

With more than 75 percent of marriages in Canada solemnized by clergy, it is clearly a deeply religious institution. It is naïve and impossible to say that you can change civil marriage without it having an impact on religious marriage and religious institutions.

She says, “The Prime Minister has said that this is an issue of fundamental rights. He has said that in redefining marriage, he is defending the Charter”. However, no international body has actually said that it is a matter of human rights. We look at the various conventions that we have internationally but none on planet earth have said that is an issue of human rights that must be foist on the Canadian public. “If that is the case, there is no room for those of us who have a different vision of family life in Canada. We are already being pushed to the margins of Canadian life”, she says, and “we are already being made to feel unwelcome”.

She continues:

This is not tolerance and it is not upholding the Charter.

The assurances the Justice Minister is making are empty promises. The Supreme Court of Canada said that any protection for religious freedom in this legislation will be struck down by the courts because the federal government does not have the legislative power to make such a law.

Under the Constitution Act, 1867, only the provincial governments can legislate to protect religious freedom relating to the solemnization of marriage. But we have not seen any action by provincial governments to protect religious freedom.

Religious freedom is a political football that is being tossed back and forth between the federal and provincial governments.

Churches and religious institutions are being set up for endless court cases. It will be death by a thousand cuts.

We call on the Justice Minister to tell Canadians how he will ensure that religious freedom is protected before he proceeds to force the redefinition of marriage on all Canadians.

Not only for the sake of the children, not only for the sake of freedom of religion and conscience in our country and our society, but also for the sake of free speech and for the sake of integrity and honesty in public figures.

We have the Deputy Prime Minister the member of Parliament for Edmonton Centre, making statements that are now a total about face with plain statements she made before. If we allow public figures to get away with that, then we have sunk to new lows in what we allow public figures.

The Deputy Prime Minister once said, “the definition of marriage is already clear in law as the union of two persons of the opposite sex. It “is a unique institution. It is one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”. She said, “Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages”. She said, “This definition of marriage, which has been consistently applied in Canada and which was reaffirmed last year to a resolution...it has served us well and will not change.

Those blatant untruths and contradictions are another reason why we need to turn this back. For the sake of integrity and honesty in public figures, if politicians can get away with such blatant untruths and contradictions, we have sunk to new lows in what we allow public figures. For these very good reasons, I would appeal to colleagues across the way and to the public why do we need to support traditional marriage.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I too will be voting against Bill C-38. The Prime Minister has one thing right. At stake is the kind of nation we are today and the nation we want to be.

There is no other issue that has come across my desk in the time I have been a member of Parliament that has generated as great a degree of correspondence by telephone, fax, email, and letter writing as the issue of marriage. It seems that, regardless of a person's position or their religion or their faith, they have come together in my constituency of Souris--Moose Mountain as one, asking me to oppose this particular bill. We find people opposed to it across Canada.

The legislation invites Canadians to go down a road they do not wish to go and to accept as a nation a fundamental change to the traditional definition of marriage, a change the majority of Canadians do not wish to accept. This does not bode well for our country. I have received numerous letters and I will read from a few of them to capsulize the feeling of my constituents. One from my home city of Estevan states:

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 government tried to define this thing as a rights issue. It is not a rights issue; it is a public policy issue. It is an issue of a definition and that issue should be settled, and has been settled in history by common law. It is time now for Parliament to restate its position by way of legislation that is appropriate. The letter further states:

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.

I ask 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. I also ask 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.

I stand against our Government's efforts to destroy the definition of traditional marriage.

That has been espoused by many people. Another letter from Whitewood, in the north part of my constituency, reads:

I would like to express my views that marriage should be protected and remain as “the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”.

Marriage is of critical importance to our society. It is perhaps the most important societal institution we have because it provides for the upbringing of children and is a foundation for strong, healthy families. Marriage ensures children have the best chance to have both a mom and a dad in their lives. Marriage also ensures the continuation of society and provides family stability for future generations. Marriage between a man and a woman is a unique relationship that simply cannot be replicated by any other relationship.

This issue is too big and too important for the justice minister, the Prime Minister and his enforcers to decide. They have not even given members of the government the free opportunity to vote on this issue but have actually asked them to support the bill, whether their personal convictions or constituents would like to see it otherwise, in a very close vote in the House.

Ultimately, it will be decided by the people of this country, and perhaps sooner than later, if we have an election. The people will speak loud and clear when the time comes for them to decide who will be representing their interests in this House.

As I said before, the Liberal government and the Liberal Party of Canada would like to describe this as a rights or equality or dignity issue. It is not. If anyone is confused on this, it is the Prime Minister. Focus on the Family has stated that the fundamental question is whether marriage has a continuing role in our modern society and, if so, should this be reflected in our laws?

It really is a public policy issue that belongs to all Canadians. The debate and the nature of marriage belongs to the realm of public policy and not basic human rights.

Many countries and organizations have held this view and it is not something that is unique to Canada. In fact, on June 8, 1999 it was the opinion of the House that it was necessary, in light of public debate around the court decisions, to state that marriage was and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament should take all steps necessary within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to preserve the definition of marriage.

What has changed since that time? There have been a number of court decisions, but they have been made in a vacuum. They have been made based on common law and not statute law. They have been made because the House has not defined marriage, when the Constitution states that the House has the ability to define the capacity to marry. The Prime Minister has chosen not to address that issue in advance of court decisions and has decided not to appeal court decisions when they were made based on the common law definition of marriage. He now tries to use that as a justification for inaction in the preservation of the traditional definition of marriage.

Where was the Prime Minister when those courts were struggling to make a decision on their own based on common law and without any guidance from the House or from a legislated body?

It is not an issue of whether gays and lesbians can vote or serve in the military. It is not an issue of whether they are discriminated against or not because discrimination has no place in our society, in our party or in the House. However, to compare that to the issue of whether the traditional definition of marriage should be maintained is something all together different.

The core issue here is the redefinition of a known term, so as to include someone who would by the very nature of the fundamental meaning of the term not be included. By reformulating, redefining or diluting the definition of marriage, it has made it to mean something other than what it is and was. Marriage is essentially the union of two people, a man and a woman, who consummate the relationship by sexual relations with the potential to procreate. Anyone fitting that description is entitled to marry. Anyone who does not, is not. We cannot simply change the definition to suit the whims or needs of anyone, whether it is catering to current political thought or what the current fad is.

Marriage is what it is always said to be and there are legal precedents for that. Justice La Forest in Egan v. Canada, a 1995 Supreme Court of Canada case, stated in reference to the traditional definition of marriage:

But its ultimate raison d'être 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.

Another letter from a legal counsel in my constituency stated:

I urge you to oppose the redefinition of marriage to include same sex couples. Marriage has been and should remain, by its very nature, a procreative relationship. That is not to say that all marriages procreate, but that its primary purpose is procreation. Same sex couples may have their relationship legally recognized in some other manner without redefining marriage.

Again, if we start redefining terms, we can make it anything we want it to be. The basis of the traditional definition of marriage was the Hyde v. Hyde case and a quote from that case that is not often quoted states:

--marriage has been well said to be something more than a contract, either religious or civil to be an institution.

The Prime Minister has attempted to define civil marriage as something else, but when we change the meaning of civil marriage, we affect all of marriage. I think we must and should take a stand against it.

The leader of my party said in the House:

There are fundamental questions here. Will this society be one which respects the longstanding basic social institution of marriage or will it be one that believes even our most basic structures can be reinvented overnight for the sake of political correctness?...there are some things more fundamental than the state and its latest fad.

That is the definition of marriage. He went on to say:

--marriage and family are not the creature of the state, but pre-exist the state.

We must as a state uphold and defend the traditional definition of marriage. It truly is a significant time in the history of our country and indeed it is a time where at stake is the kind of nation we are today and the kind of nation we want to be.

As the Prime Minister has stated, “the gaze of history is upon us”. Whose vision of the future of our nation is the correct one? There is no doubt about that, the people of Canada will see to it. The Prime Minister has it wrong. The people of Canada will set the record straight at the ballot box.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak again on behalf of my constituents of Langley on the government's plan to change the historic definition of marriage. Thousands of Langley residents responded to my request for input and 96% said they want me to vote to uphold the traditional definition of marriage being between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. That is exactly what I will do.

The Prime Minister's plan to change the definition of marriage is an attack on Canadian society and on religious freedoms. His comments on marriage have been dishonest and need to be challenged.

The people of Langley have plenty to say about marriage. I have received thousands of letters, e-mails and cards. Here is a sample:

I want to thank you for your vote in favour of the amendment to Bill C-38. Your support for marriage between a man and a woman is very crucial at this point in Canadian history and I encourage you to remain steadfast in your efforts. As Bill C-38 works its way through the parliamentary process, I ask you to work to persuade your parliamentary colleagues who may still be undecided about traditional marriage. As you know, every vote will count when this bill gets to third reading. Thank you again for standing on behalf of marriage. In the next election, I will be certain to support a candidate who shares my convictions about marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Parliament voted on the definition of marriage three times in the past six years. In 1999 the Prime Minister and many of the current cabinet members supported a motion that defined marriage as a union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of 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 the traditional definition, causing it to be defeated 137 to 132.

During the last election many of his cabinet ministers were again promising Canadians that they would defend traditional marriage. Promises made, promises broken.

On April 12 the House voted on the Conservative motion to “protect the traditional definition of marriage, to provide the same rights and benefits to same sex unions, and to protect the religious rights of all Canadians”. That motion represented the democratic wishes of the majority of Canadians. Tragically, the Prime Minister ignored those rights of the majority and whipped the vote of his cabinet. The democratic rights of Canadians were defeated in a vote of 164 to 132. That was a sad day for democracy.

The Prime Minister and his Liberal government have been dishonest and have been misleading Canadians in three major ways. They have been saying that redefining marriage is a human rights issue. That is wrong. They have said that redefining marriage is required in the charter. That is wrong. They have said that the civil marriage act will protect religious freedoms. That is wrong.

Let us start with human rights. 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 is 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.

The Prime Minister knows that the decisions of the United Nations and international courts do not support what he has been saying. Why is the Prime Minister being dishonest and whipping his cabinet? Because without manipulated support the bill would fail.

The second way that the government is misleading Canadians is with regard to equality rights. The Liberal government said only equal access to civil marriage would fully comply with the charter. It has said that any institution other than marriage is less than equal. That is utter nonsense. Same sex unions have equal rights.

The Liberals have also misled Canadians by saying that the Conservative Party is against equality rights. To the contrary, and let me be absolutely clear, the Conservative Party supports equal rights and benefits for same sex couples. We are the only party that believes in the charter rights of all Canadians, not just a select few. Gay and lesbian couples have equal rights to central social institutions, such as legal unions, and have equal rights.

The justice committee began studying same sex marriage in November 2002. Many members and witnesses at the 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 which could provide equal rights and benefits in accordance with the will of the majority of Canadians.

Equal rights do not equate to same rights. Canada has many examples and instances where Canadians have fought for equal rights, but not the same rights. For example, the child tax benefit cheques normally go to the mother, 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 has said that Parliament has the authority to redefine marriage if it so wishes.

The majority of Canadians do not want the definition of marriage changed. The power hungry, undemocratic Liberal government is bent on changing marriage, ignoring the rights of the majority of Canadians. The government could not care less about the consequences of its agenda. It is misleading Canadians and forging ahead with its social experiment, changing the Canada that we all know and love.

The Liberals want to change the historical religious definition of marriage which predates our government. They also plan to legalize marijuana, legalize prostitution and take away the charitable status of faith based organizations. This is not the Canada that Canadians want. The Prime Minister's values are not Canadian values.

The third way that Canadians are being misled is the protection of religious rights. Bill C-38 does not protect religious rights. The third clause is merely a recognition and has no teeth whatsoever. Saying that the civil marriage act will protect religious freedoms is dishonest and misleading. The solemnization of marriage is in the provincial jurisdiction. This is very clear and the Liberals had their hands slapped by the Supreme Court.

If the Prime Minister really wanted to protect religious freedoms, he would have drafted amendments to the Income Tax Act on charitable status. Before tabling Bill C-38 he had the time to make those changes, but he chose not to.

Bill C-38 is not about human rights, but about the Liberals 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 rights. We have seen this in Oshawa, where a Catholic school was charged with discrimination for not allowing Marc Hall's boyfriend into the graduation dance. In greater Vancouver, the Knights of Columbus were charged for cancelling a booking for a same sex wedding reception. More than 50 marriage commissioners have resigned or been fired because of their religious freedoms and rights.

This is just the start. One of Pope John Paul II's appointed bishops, Bishop Fred Henry, formerly of Windsor, who celebrated the mass at the funeral of the hon. Paul Martin Sr., and is now the Bishop of Calgary, is being brought before the Human Rights Commission for his defence of marriage. Who is next? Teachers in faith based schools will have to resign or be forced to lecture against their religious beliefs.

Members of the Liberal government are describing religious institutions as being discriminatory and have argued already that their charitable tax status should be revoked. This would cause the closure of churches, synagogues, mosques and any faith based organization that disagrees with the Liberal government.

The attacks have just started. Marriage is a historic religious union that predates government. From time immemorial it has been a union of one man and one woman. It is more than just two people uniting. It is God being part of it in joining the union according to His will.

The government should not change the traditional definition of marriage. I will be voting against the government's Bill C-38.

[Gary Schellenberger, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-38. I appreciate that so many of my constituents took the time to share their concerns with me. The issue of same sex marriage is an emotionally charged one with people on each side of the issue expressing their sincere, deeply held beliefs.

After carefully considering the views of the majority of my constituents who have contacted me on this issue, as well as my personal beliefs, I am in support of the traditional definition of marriage. I voted in favour of the motion that reaffirmed that definition in September 2003 and I will continue to take this position in the future.

I, like many on this side of the House, believe in the traditional common definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Not everyone shares this view. Because there will be a true free vote in my party on this issue, it makes me proud to be a Conservative. I very much respect my colleagues and, indeed, fellow Canadians who do not share my views on the issue and think respectful debate on the matter is genuinely good for democracy.

This House, including the current Prime Minister, voted to uphold the definition of marriage in 1999 and in the amendments to Bill C-23 in 2000. In fact, the Deputy Prime Minister, who was then justice minister, led the defence of marriage from the government side.

The following is what the Deputy Prime Minister said in 1999 in support of her defence of the traditional definition of marriage. She said:

We on this side agree that the institution of marriage is a central and important institution in the lives of many Canadians. It plays an important part in all societies worldwide, second only to the fundamental importance of family to all of us.

“—unions of persons of the same sex are not 'marriages', because of the definition of marriage”.

Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages.

Marriage has fundamental value and importance to Canadians and we do not believe on this side of the House that importance and value is in any way threatened or undermined by others seeking to have their long term relationships recognized. I support the motion for maintaining the clear legal definition of marriage in Canada as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

This was the Deputy Prime Minister speaking less than six years ago. What she said was true then and it is true now.

The Supreme Court itself has still not addressed this issue despite a clear request to do so from the government. It is important to note that the Supreme Court of Canada ruling on December 9, 2004 did not declare the traditional definition of marriage as unconstitutional. The court made it clear that it believes the issue is for Parliament to deal with.

What is unconstitutional is any kind of discrimination against members of any minority group. We must work hard to ensure that a same sex couple entering into a loving, committed relationship via a civil or domestic union is afforded the same protections, benefits and status as married couples receive under the law.

All law-abiding Canadians must be able to conduct their lives and contribute to society without fear of discrimination. I believe that the proposed amendment suggested by the Leader of the Opposition would have provided the best ground to find a constructive compromise that the vast majority of Canadians would have felt comfortable with.

I want to congratulate the leader of the Conservative Party for advocating a very wise and reasonable position. The majority of Canadians are looking for a middle ground compromise that would recognize the valid concerns of the partisans on either side.

On the one hand, some Canadians seek to preserve the traditional definition of the term marriage, which predates the creation of the nation state. On the other hand, there is a belief that by broadening the definition of marriage to include same sex couples, Canadian society will take an important step in the direction of tolerance and respect of homosexuals. I believe we can achieve this kind of tolerant, respectful society without changing the definition of marriage.

I am entirely supportive of state recognition of same gender civil or domestic unions, bringing with them all the same protections and benefits as marriage, but for the same sex couples. A same gender couple in Canada wishing to enter into a loving lifelong committed relationship must be afforded the same protection and status as married couples under the law.

We can be tolerant and respectful to all parties in this matter without changing the definition of marriage. This is the kind of compromise that should be reached.

The rights of all minority groups must be strongly protected, and it would be wrong to marginalize homosexuals. Any type of discrimination directed against the homosexual community is completely unacceptable. I want to be clear about that.

For me, the issue is not an issue of human rights. It is about freedom of religion. Just as we must protect minority rights, we must also protect religious freedom in Canada. Finding a fair balance can be difficult.

The Conservative compromise option may not satisfy everyone. It would not satisfy those who believe that equality rights for same gender couples are an absolute, which cannot be compromised by accepting anything less than full marriage, or that the heterosexual status of marriage is an absolute, which cannot be compromised by recognizing equal rights for other kinds of unions. But it would satisfy the vast majority of Canadians who are seeking common ground on the issue.

There is no need to go to extremes in this debate. Accepting a compromise that respects the will of the majority and upholds rights is exactly what the amendments proposed by the Conservative Party represent.

Conservatives would propose that other forms of union, whether heterosexual or homosexual, whether called common law status, civil unions or registered domestic partnerships, should be entitled to the same legal rights, privileges and benefits of traditional marriage.

Conservatives believe that same gender couples should have the right to be treated the same as married couples when it comes to matters like pensions, tax obligations or immigration matters. Any federal law that would treat same gender couples any differently from married couples is completely unacceptable.

This is not a reactionary solution that would infringe on any Canadian's human rights as the government alleges. The Conservative position represents a moderate compromise position that would keep Canada in the company of some of the most tolerant and progressive countries in the western world, a Canada we can be proud of.

The overwhelming majority of my constituents believe that marriage is a basically heterosexual institution, but that same gender couples also have rights to equality within society that should be recognized and protected.

Michael Whitehouse wrote me from Stratford, “I am not opposed to people choosing their own way of life, nor am I opposed to seeing civil unions being given benefits. I am opposed to changing the definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman”.

Marguerite and Oscar Schill of Alma said, “We believe that the definition of union would be an appropriate title for same sex couples to own and would give them honour and dignity and their own definition of being united in love. This would not interfere with those of us who own the definition of marriage”.

Mrs. Inez Haid of Listowel passed this along, “I have no bias when it comes to homosexuals. I respect them. Since they have had the courage to declare their lifestyle, why is there not a vocabulary and a ceremony which would apply to their situation? Give them the same rights and obligations as the traditional married couples but don't call it 'marriage' or a 'wedding ceremony'”.

Winnifred and Norman Dow from Mitchell added, “We are not against some kind of union for such couples but feel the traditional definition as the sacred union of a man and a woman must be respected and maintained”.

One of the problems throughout this debate has been the media's habit of interchanging the terms “same sex marriage” and “same sex union”. The media often starts out using the term “marriage” and then switches back to “union”. Let us be clear here. I am in favour of defending the traditional definition of marriage, and in favour of supporting same gender unions. People should at all times be honest and transparent. Trying to confuse voters is not the answer.

If the government honestly put forward legislation that would preserve marriage while recognizing equal rights of same gender couples through civil unions or other means, then this is the option that most Canadians would choose. This compromise is consistent with Canadian traditions, and it is the option that only the Conservative Party is prepared to offer.

I thank all of those who wrote and e-mailed me on this issue.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased again to speak to Bill C-38. I had an opportunity to speak on the amendment which, unfortunately, was defeated. I think the vote on that particular amendment, which was that the bill not pass a second time, showed that this House is divided. Indeed, Canadians are divided on this question.

There have been some very eloquent speeches about the issue of granting marriage. I know in my own speech I spent a fair bit of time talking about the charter and how important the charter was, and reviewing cases up to the Ontario Halpern decision in which something had changed.

Up until that time the courts had ruled that section 15 of the equality provisions of the charter were in fact being infringed, and under a section 1 analysis, which permits infringements of some of the charter provisions, it dealt with it on the basis of whether it was demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. It was not until the Halpern decision that the courts started to focus in on marriage as an institution. Unfortunately, the panel of three looked at marriage in a very mechanical way.

The court said that marriage as an institution was a declining institution. It pointed out that marriage breakdown or divorce was very prevalent and that obviously society at large was not very much interested in the institution of marriage.

The court also went on to look at the number of people who are seeking common law relationships rather than married relationships. That again is a precise indication that marriage as an institution is a declining institution. Those numbers are continuing to rise. Indeed, Statistics Canada has projected that the number of common law relationships on the current trend line will in fact exceed married relationships within about 10 years.

As an institution marriage has come under attack. I know that many members are quite concerned about the social tendencies. The court went even further. The argument about children in marriage has been a matter which has been debated in this place substantively. The court basically said that there are situations where people can rely on reproductive technologies for instance to have children. There can be artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization and adoption. In fact, a same sex couple can indeed have a child from a previous heterosexual relationship. The existence of children within a same sex couple is not necessarily unusual.

The court literally trashed the institution of marriage as having relevance. The court basically said, under the section 1 analysis of the infringement, that it was no longer a reasonably justified infringement on the equality provisions and that the definition of marriage was indeed contrary to the charter.

Here is where we are now. There is the Ontario court decision and then there were these copycat decisions in other provincial jurisdictions. Here we are in Parliament and I have heard petitions day after day reflecting what Canadians wanted to hear from parliamentarians. It was that the definition of marriage is in fact the responsibility of the Parliament of Canada. Parliament is still the highest court in the land, even above the Supreme Court of Canada. We now have this instrument in Bill C-38.

I find Bill C-38 a very peculiar bill. It is a bill which includes a variety of whereases. As well all know, the courts have indicated that whereases have absolutely no basis in terms of law.

There also is a clause in there which makes some peculiar reference to religious freedoms being protected. If we took everything away and left that one clause in, it absolutely has no result or consequences. The responsibilities vis-à-vis solemnization of marriage are, according to the Supreme Court decision ultra vires, a responsibility of the provinces not of the federal government. To have a statement recognizing that the solemnization of marriage is going to be taken care of is not within the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada. In fact, clause 3 has absolutely no relevance whatsoever in the legislation.

Ultimately, if we take out all the whereases and we take out clause 3, which has absolutely nothing to do with anything, we are left with one line and it says that marriage is the union of two persons. Bill C-38 is all about that. If we take the definition of marriage and we reduce it down to the union of two persons, it has no distinctiveness whatsoever. It has absolutely no defining characteristics. The debate has been about this. What are the defining characteristics?

We know what it is throughout history. We know that marriage pre-existed even religions. It is an institution which historically has been viewed as an institution which fosters an environment for the fundamental responsibility of all species, and that is to survive, to procreate. Marriage is that institution which has played this role. It has given people hope. It is why young people now are flocking back to marriage, and the numbers are changing. They see this as a stable institution.

We have had so many debates in this place about problems of domestic violence, poverty and problems in other social areas. The conclusion in all of those debates and all the research have been that the basic unit of society, the family, mothers and fathers, the children with the biological mother and father is the safest place for children and for women. It is the most nurturing environment to ensure that healthy, well-adjusted children are raised in our society. This is a good thing.

When we go through this debate, how often have members who want to defend the traditional definition of marriage been characterized as being homophobic? I believe we have to remind people that one can be for something without being against something else.

There are many people here who have absolutely no problem with homosexual couples having relationships and considering other forms of it. However, to say that it has no impact, that it will not change anything, from my standpoint, the member for Mississauga South, the bill is an affront to me. It is an affront to my religious beliefs. It is an affront to the holy books of virtually every mainstream religion, of which I know, dealing with the institution of marriage. It is something that is so sacred to so many people across Canada.

With such a divisive issue, why, when we have so many people across the country who are upset about this, should we have a bill that will not be sensitive to those needs? We did not look for an opportunity to have some sort of compromise. The bill did not look at civil unions. Many people feel that is a reasonable compromise.

However, marriage is an institution which has a history. It has a tradition. It has a purpose. It is known. It is respected. What we are going to do now is take that tradition, that institution, and we are going to reduce it down to something as simple as a union of two people. How bizarre, how unfortunate and how sad for Canada.

This is not a good bill. It is a bad bill and it should be defeated.

I know most of the members in this place. I have a great deal of respect for this place and a great deal of respect for the members who have put themselves forward in public office to do the best job they can.

I do not know how all this will work out, but I want Canadians to know that all the people in this place who have fought so very hard to defend the traditional definition of marriage have done so in favour of the traditional definition of marriage and not against some other lifestyle choices. There is a high degree of respect and integrity in this place and I am very proud to be here.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary North Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my comments today commence with the metaphor relied upon by Pope John Paul II in 1988 in his encyclical letter which said:

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth--

The bill involves the balancing of two of the fundamental personal freedoms which are protected under the charter: freedom of religion on the one hand and individual equality rights on the other. The legislation therefore, by definition, takes us into the realm of both faith and reason.

I speak today on behalf of the people of Calgary Centre-North, and in so doing I point out that this issue is one on which there is a wide divergence of opinion because of the unique geography and demography of my riding.

I have learned though extensive consultation with the constituents of Calgary Centre-North that there is a diversity of opinion on this question. I will attempt today to reflect in my comments what I have heard. The vast majority of my constituents do not wish to see this as an issue which divides Canadians.

I would also like to recognize in the House the courage of our leader, the hon. member for Calgary Southwest, who had the strength and integrity to allow Conservative MPs vote freely on this motion. In fact, at the last Conservative Party policy convention, members adopted a policy authorizing a free vote on moral issues such as this.

The Liberal Party and its leader have neither the courage nor the faith in their own MPs and parliamentarians to do likewise.

Let me begin with the province of faith, for I am a Christian and there are strong communities of faith in my riding, both Christian and otherwise. Even among Christians there are strong disagreements on this matter. I emphasize that freedom of religion is central to who we are as a nation.

Subsection 2(a) of our charter provides that freedom of conscience and religion is a fundamental right of every Canadian. Freedom of religion lies at the heart of our free and democratic society.

This freedom was guaranteed under the British North America Act, even before this country was founded. In 1774, shortly after the British conquered North America, the British House of Commons adopted the Quebec Act, which ensured freedom of religion.

The Canadian Bill of Rights of 1960 provided protection for freedom of religion and throughout our history, whether it be beneath the shelter of the charter, the bill of rights, or the freedom of worship legislation of which I speak, we have stood as Canadians in defence of freedom of religion. In my own riding strong Christian congregations, such as the Centre Street Church, flourish in the shelter of freedom of religion.

Bill C-38 is limited to civil marriage. It has no bearing upon religious marriage or its solemnization. Clause 3 of the bill provides:

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

In the marriage reference decision of 2004 the Supreme Court of Canada concluded in clear language that any attempt to compel religious officials to perform same sex marriage almost certainly runs afoul of the charter and would violate the charter. The court also stated that the same holds true for any attempt to compel the use of sacred places for same sex marriage.

In my opinion, this observation by the Supreme Court sufficiently clarifies the distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage under federal legislation.

However, provincial legislation must still be amended; this is no small task. Legally, the provinces are responsible for issuing marriage licences to couples, be they heterosexual or homosexual.

I am somewhat surprised by the absence of attention to the provincial ramifications of this federal bill. In the marriage reference even the Supreme Court pointed out that the provinces will have to pass legislation relating to the solemnization of marriage so as to protect the rights of religious officials while providing for the solemnization of same sex marriage.

In my view provincial legislation needs to be adopted in each province to address the following issues: first, the right of religious officials to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies with which they disagree; second, the right of religious groups to refuse to make real property which they own or control available for the performance of marriage ceremonies or celebrations with which they disagree; third, the right of public officials to decline to perform marriage ceremonies with which they disagree; and fourth, the right of religious groups to maintain their charitable status irrespective of the beliefs which they hold in respect of marriage.

I am of the view however that the proposed bill does not violate freedom of religion or to the opposite sex requirement which many, although not all, religious groups believe is a precondition to religious marriage.

I return then to reason, accepting that it can never be entirely divorced from faith. Clause 2 of the bill provides that:

Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.

Let me be clear. I have been married to the same woman for 21 years, reflecting my own personal definition of a marriage. It is not however the personal definition of many of our fellow citizens who are homosexual and who have sought the protection of the charter to obtain civil marriage licences from the government. In a constitutional democracy, such as Canada, what should we do about such a conflict?

This begs the fundamental question: what right do we have, as a society, to deny homosexual Canadians something the rest of us are entitled to, namely a civil marriage licence?

As hard as it is to admit, the answer is quite clear, in my opinion. We have no such moral authority because relationships between individuals, of any gender, do not concern the government as long as these individuals are not harming anyone.

I am a Conservative and this is the philosophy that guides me in public life. I have previously referred to John Stuart Mill who commented that “over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign”.

The recognition of same sex marriage does not discriminate against nor harm opposite sex married couples. Recognition of the equality rights of one group does not violate the rights of another.

Many of my constituents are concerned about the risk of societal harm and I understand the fervour with which they hold that point of view. Others see little or no such risk. As a member of Parliament I have attempted to weigh these concerns, noting that my constituents are completely divided on the subject.

In the end, I have decided to defend the constitutional right of homosexual couples to civil marriage. The proposed legislation is consistent with the Constitution, the charter and our history as a tolerant nation.

I will be equally vigilant in defending religious marriage and religious freedom, for it is equally clear that neither the Christian community nor the other communities of faith can be compelled to accept or perform same sex marriage. That freedom, to quote the Supreme Court, “will be jealously guarded by the courts”, and I say today that it must be jealously guarded also by this House. Religious freedom must stand sacrosanct and religious marriage must stand as the exclusive preserve of our communities of faith.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the motion for second reading of Bill C-38, the Liberal bill that proposes to redefine traditional marriage.

I am very disappointed at what the Liberals have done today in shutting down any possible motions and in fact trying to ensure that this matter is not fully debated. I hope that Canadians understand what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice has just done. He has shut down debate on one of the most crucial matters in the Canadian political scene today.

I have already addressed some of the concerns I have with the bill and with the manner in which the Liberals handled this issue during the course of the past several years. I do not want to repeat those points of debate at this time. What I do want to address today is the refusal of the Liberal government to allow the legislative committee on Bill C-38 to hear testimony on the substantial matters of the bill and the refusal to allow the committee to travel and hear Canadians' views on this important matter of social policy.

Let us recap what happened in 2003 when the justice committee examined this issue. The committee heard from a wide range of witnesses from all across Canada and travelled across the country. It was unfortunately turned into a sham by the Liberal-led majority on the committee which voted to shut down the committee before it could even issue its report.

The former justice minister, Martin Cauchon, had asked the House of Commons justice committee to travel the country and hear representations on same sex marriage from all walks of life. We did that and we were writing the report. Then on June 12, 2003 the Liberals on the justice committee, helped by the NDP and the Bloc, voted by a margin of one to recommend to the government that the committee not appeal the Ontario Court of Appeal ruling on this issue.

The committee's work was rendered irrelevant and the committee did not report back to Parliament on its hearings on marriage and the recognition of same sex unions.

I would like to remind the House that the Liberal government at that time actually replaced some of the regular members of the committee with others who were guaranteed to vote in a certain way, despite the fact that they had not heard the evidence.

During the course of those committee hearings, we heard from a broad spectrum of witnesses, including not only representatives from religious faiths but also economists, lawyers and academics. These included such respected figures as Dr. Dan Cere and Dr. Margaret Somerville from McGill University.

Simply hearing the evidence without having the opportunity to evaluate it and report on it to the justice minister and the House of Commons does not do the committee much good. It is hardly a substitute for a substantial hearing on the matter.

The Liberals are once again trying to stifle not only the House, as the parliamentary secretary just did a few moments ago, but they are also trying to stifle the committee. Instead of bringing this matter to the full justice committee where the justice committee could have heard substantive evidence from all types of witnesses and could have travelled this country to hear from witnesses, they have referred it to a special legislative committee.

According to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, special legislative committees can hear witnesses only on technical matters. As such, the committee itself has no jurisdiction to change its mandate. It is bound to hear only technical evidence. Regardless of what the Prime Minister has promised, regardless of what the justice minister has promised, the committee has no jurisdiction to change that Standing Order.

The common statement is that a committee is master of its own procedure. That is not correct in this situation. In fact the committee is bound by the provisions of the Standing Order. Standing Order 113(5) reads as follows:

Any legislative committee shall be empowered to examine and enquire into the bills referred to it by the House and to report the same with or without amendments, to prepare a bill pursuant to Standing Order 68 and to report thereon and, except when the House otherwise orders,--

The House can otherwise order--

--to send for officials from government departments and agencies and crown corporations and for other persons whom the committee deems to be competent to appear as witnesses on technical matters, to send for papers and records, to sit when the House is sitting, to sit when the House stands adjourned, and to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it.

The jurisdiction that the committee has is limited by Standing Order 113(5). While credit should be given to the hon. member for London--Fanshawe for doing his best to persuade the Prime Minister of the necessity of expanding the committee's mandate, it is highly doubtful that these promises can be carried through.

Again it is another example of the Prime Minister making a promise and breaking that promise, knowing full well that the committee that is going to hear this matter cannot do what the Prime Minister publicly stated to Canadians it would do. The Prime Minister knows that. He has in fact misled Canadians on that point.

What specific assurances can the Prime Minister give that there is authority for the committee to hear evidence beyond technical evidence? The point is quite clear that he cannot give any assurances. Only this House can give those assurances. That is why the parliamentary secretary stood up today to make sure that there are no further motions, to make sure that the jurisdiction of the committee cannot be expanded.

The Prime Minister stood before Canadians, including the member for London--Fanshawe, and made all kinds of promises about how the committee was going to do what committees usually do. In fact he knows that he has misled his own member for London--Fanshawe and he has misled the Canadian people on this fundamental debate.

The parliamentary secretary himself has indicated that there will be no travel across Canada. What do Canadians get from this technical hearing at a committee? A number of bureaucrats, a number of justice department lawyers telling Canadians what is good for them. It is a prime example of when Liberals come to Ottawa. They do not represent to Ottawa what Canadians want. Rather, they tell Canadians what Ottawa wants. This is a perfect example of telling Canadians what Ottawa wants, and not telling Ottawa what Canadians want.

According to the most recent statements by the justice minister, the minister states he is not aware of any promises the Prime Minister has made to the member for London--Fanshawe. That is interesting. The Prime Minister stood up on national news, on national TV. Everyone in Canada heard those assurances by the Prime Minister, and the justice minister has said that he is not aware of any assurances that were made. Then his parliamentary secretary walked in here and shut down debate to ensure that the Prime Minister's promises cannot be kept. That is shameful conduct for the Prime Minister of Canada.

The Minister of Justice said in response to a question:

Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any backroom deal. I only know the answer I gave to a question asked by the hon. member in the House, to which the hon. member referred.

I said that any special legislative committee that was set up would address this bill in hearings as it did any other bill.

What the Minister of Justice is saying is that there was no backroom deal. Canadians know that there was no backroom deal. The Prime Minister made those commitments publicly. Promise made, promise broken.

The Prime Minister must now explain to the Canadian people why he has specifically broken his word to the member for London--Fanshawe, to the members in this House and indeed to the people of Canada. Why is he shutting down debate in this House? Why is he limiting debate in committee?

The Prime Minister has held out false hope on a number of occasions. This is only the latest example of a promise made, a promise broken.

[Belinda Stronach, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today in support of Bill C-38, both as a citizen of this democracy and as a proud Conservative. In an ideal world, I wish that we did not even have to be here in Parliament discussing the concept of marriage, a matter much better suited to the private world of individual relationships between fellow human beings. But I am a realist. The courts have been speaking in unison across the country in support of individual rights and we must take up our responsibility in this chamber.

At the core of the issue in Bill C-38 is the definition of marriage. We cannot cut it any other way. It is hard to imagine a more personal or emotional question, and we all have our own views. I have been talking with my fellow citizens in Newmarket and Aurora for months and canvassing their views. I wanted to make sure that I had the benefit of their input before I voted on the earlier amendment and on the bill.

Two conclusions emerged from those consultations. First, my riding is as divided as the country is on the issue so there is no overwhelming majority opinion. Second, the overwhelming majority of people do not raise the issue unless asked directly. Most set their priorities for what they expect from government in other areas, such as jobs, good quality health care, education, public services like mass transit, safe streets, the environment and so on. There is a lesson in here for all of us.

My own approach to the core issue of Bill C-38 relates both to rights and to my appreciation of my own conservatism. It is not about homosexuality.

On the first aspect, the discussion of same sex marriage is a question of rights and equality before the law. For me it is quite simple: how can we, as citizens in a modern democratic Canada, think that we can enjoy a right and then deny that right to a fellow citizen? If we want the right to be considered married, then that right must apply to each and every person. We cannot divide and choose among rights; they are indivisible. A right must exist independently of its exercise. It is a question of being fair, and fairness too is a Canadian value.

The same litmus test of fairness and rights applies equally to the other side of the equation. Churches and religious leaders have the right not to perform same sex marriages. I have argued consistently that this was a necessary part of the package since the very first day I entered public life. With rights come responsibilities, and if a church decides for its own reasons not to marry a same sex couple, then that couple should look for a different church that does or have a civil ceremony.

When compromises are presented to find ways to substitute other equivalent legal benefits for the right to be called married, I still find myself at the same place. I appreciate and understand that the effort to find compromise is taken to broker a way forward. However, the fact that the right to be called married is at the core of the law means that there is for me no way around that reality. That is what the right is all about.

My position on Bill C-38 is taken as a conservative. I respect very much the views of others based on the values they perceive in traditional marriage, but for me the transcending and overriding value is the liberty of the individual to choose what is right for herself or himself without the state telling her or him what to do, how to arrange their lives or how to behave. I think John Stuart Mill summed it up in his classic formulation: “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign”.

As long as a person is not violating the rights and the safety of others, my conservatism is about his or her freedom: freedom to act, to choose one's own path, the freedom to pursue potential and dreams without having to live through the values of others. For me this debate is not about whether traditional marriage between a man and a woman has any more value than another kind of marriage, but rather that it is none of my darn business to try to tell another individual that my kind of arrangement has more value.

Canada's laws that protect individual rights and liberties should be separate from the grand debates of moral conscience. Those laws protect all of us equally, conservatives whether more traditional or less traditional, liberals, churches and minorities.

To borrow the words of U.S. congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, “The only way to make sure people you agree with can speak is to support the rights of other people you don't agree with”.

There is an even greater responsibility facing members of this House. When the debate on Bill C-38 is over and the voting is completed, Canadians expect us to move on to the issues that really matter to them and quickly. We need a strategy in this country to be the most competitive in the world. We need policies that will create quality jobs. We need leadership on education. We need a competitive tax structure. We need to rebuild our relationship with the United States.

Before ceding the floor, I would like to thank and congratulate the leader of the Conservative Party for having allowed a free vote on this bill, a piece of legislation that cuts to the heart of our beliefs as individuals. I think that all members of the Conservative caucus appreciate his decisive leadership on this matter.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with the opposition day.

On Friday, we will return to Bill C-43, the budget bill. If it is completed, we will proceed with Bill C-40, respecting the WTO.

The first item of business on Monday will be Bill C-40. If necessary, we would then return to the budget bill, which contains all the initiatives that I know Canadians support from coast to coast to coast, like the Atlantic accord, the new deal for cities, and the increase in payments to seniors through OAS.

We will then return to the second reading debate of Bill C-38, the marriage bill, which will be the first item on Tuesday. When that business is completed, we will return to departmental bills: Bill C-23, Bill C-22, Bill C-26 and Bill C-9.

Next Wednesday shall be an allotted day.

Petitions

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have another of many petitions that we get from our ridings where the petitioners are concerned about the outcome of Bill C-38. They insist that marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman. These are people from St. Paul's Presbyterian Church in Warwick Settlement, New Brunswick.

Civil Marriage Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition to the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-38.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Points of Order

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask your judgment, your ruling and your response to what I believe is a problem with Bill C-38 in clause 3. With the consent of our justice critic, I will read part of that clause. It 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.

The authorization to solemnize marriage is really a matter of provincial jurisdiction but the clause implies that somehow it is a federal responsibility. I am asking whether this clause should be in the bill. I would like to receive a response from the Chair whether in fact it has been indicated that it is ultra vires and it is unconstitutional and therefore should not be in the bill. I would like your ruling in respect of that so that this clause could be removed from the bill.

Civil Marriage Act

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

The member is getting into a point of debate. There will be opportunities in committee to raise his point of order.

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, March 24 the question to dispose of the amendment to the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-38 is deemed put and a recorded division is deemed demanded and deferred until Tuesday, April 12 at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill we are debating today carries the highest importance and significance for Canadian society, for aside from all the social changes that I believe that the bill would bring in, just as important is this: if the bill passes and is upheld, the state will have crossed a new frontier for government expansion.

Governments, both provincial and federal, do not even blush as they trample upon individual or local areas of responsibility. Private property rights, families, faith and religious groups, schools, and small and large businesses have all felt the effects of a far-reaching aspect of government intrusion. Now the government is expanding its reach even further, for it is attempting to alter a fundamental reality of our society.

Whatever is decided here on the bill, marriage itself will not be changed in reality. The government may force all Canadians to recognize homosexual marriages. It may force marriage commissioners to resign if they refuse to perform something that is against their conscience. The state may even threaten religious institutions and clergy who stand up against such actions.

Through it all, marriage will endure unchanged. Marriage will exist because marriage does not come from the state and does not depend on the government.

Abraham Lincoln has been credited with this quote, which goes something like this, “How many legs would a dog have if you counted the tail as a leg?” The answer is just four. Just because a tail is called a leg does not make it a leg. If Bill C-38 passes, governments and individual Canadians will be forced to call a tail a leg, nothing more, but that is not inconsequential, for its effect on marriage, such an integral building block of our society, would have far-reaching effects.

The ramifications of altering for legal purposes the definition of marriage, such an essential institution in our society, would be far-reaching. I believe that the onus lies on those who would change such an essential foundation to prove the necessity and prove the effects.

The Prime Minister has ignored the evidence of human history, the will of the Canadian people and recent decisions of this Parliament in bringing in the bill. His explanation has been but one line: that it is a “charter right”. I would like to discuss the legal arguments surrounding that issue.

The argument that it is somehow a charter right is perhaps the most prevalent legal argument being put forth today. I remind hon. members that the Supreme Court precisely did not rule that there is a charter right to same sex marriage. By silence, the court has upheld the status quo in law in Canada today.

Dr. Somerville, a source who has been quoted a few times by members giving speeches, put it this way:

Institutions have both inherent and collateral features. Inherent features define the institution and cannot be changed without destroying the institution.

I would also remind the House that even the United Nations, certainly no bastion of conservatism and traditional values, has categorically dismissed the claim that homosexual marriage is a right. Within Canada we have heard similar experts say the very same thing.

I know this passage has also been cited here before, but I think it should be heard again. Former Supreme Court Justice Gérard La Forest, speaking on behalf of the majority in the Egan decision, said the following:

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 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.

Let us note the phrase “by nature heterosexual”. He did not say “by act of Parliament heterosexual”. He did not say “by judicial decision heterosexual”. He said that it is a fundamental reality that marriage is an opposite sex institution, something, by the way, that the current Deputy Prime Minister argued for vociferously and quite passionately, and I might add quite articulately, when she was appealing a judicial case on behalf of the government.

This is the last ruling that the Supreme Court rendered on the constitutionality of traditional marriage. Justice La Forest is saying that marriage exists primarily for the procreation of human beings. It is the essence of marriage and its primary focus. There is nothing more important to society than the raising of children, for its very survival requires it.

Homosexual unions are by nature contradictory to this. There is no complementarity of the sexes. Two members of the same sex may use their God-given free will to engage in acts, to cohabit and to own property together. They may commit themselves to monogamy. They may pledge to remain in a loving relationship for life. In that sense they have many of the collateral features of marriage, but they do not have its inherent feature, as they cannot commit to the natural procreation of children. They cannot therefore be married.

I would like to add that the Prime Minister's hypocrisy on the issue of what the courts have said is really quite appalling. He tells us that we must endorse gay marriage because the courts have told us to. The Supreme Court did not tell us to. It rejected the idea that traditional marriage is against the charter. It refused to answer that reference question.

Why is the Prime Minister making this a false charter issue? Perhaps it is because he knows that this is contrary to the will of the vast majority of Canadians. Perhaps he needs an excuse to advocate this because he knows that Canadians are not behind him.

The Prime Minister then tells us not to worry because he will protect religious institutions. He has not done that with this bill. The Supreme Court did rule that only the provinces could do that.

On the one hand, he orders us to follow the rulings of the courts. On the other, he ignores the ruling of the courts. The Prime Minister's double-talk on these issues and his attempts to change the meaning of a word and an institution that are a fundamental reality of our society reminds me of a quote from Through the Looking Glass , by Lewis Carroll. It goes like this:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master--that's all.”

There are also grave concerns regarding the practical ramifications of this bill. We have seen religious organizations in British Columbia sued over their position on same sex marriage. I speak of course about the Knights of Columbus, who refused to rent out a hall for a same sex wedding reception. It was against their core religious beliefs to do so, yet they are being persecuted.

In Calgary, Bishop Fred Henry has found himself before a human rights tribunal because he dared to articulate his church's teachings on the matter. This is without a doubt one of the worst attacks on freedom of speech and freedom of religion that we have seen in this country in generations. To think that a Catholic bishop must answer to a civil authority over matters of faith is abominable.

It is abhorrent to me, to other Catholics and to every member of every faith community. It is abhorrent because the very essence of being a religious official is to teach the faith and instruct the faithful. There is an inherent right for religious officials to do so.

These developments cause me to warn the House very seriously of what will happen if this bill is passed. The provisions in this bill to protect religious officials are meaningless. These provisions touch on the only area that the Supreme Court has ruled as outside the scope of the federal government.

It is worth repeating that the last judgment on the matter of marriage by the Supreme Court was to uphold the traditional definition of marriage. That has not changed with the recent court answers to the government's reference questions. It has not changed because the Supreme Court was silent on that reference question. In our common law tradition, in the absence of a new ruling or a new statute, the previous judgments stand.

I would like to congratulate my leader for his courageous stand in defence of marriage. Throughout this entire debate, while the pro-same sex marriage lobby has resorted to personal attacks, charges of bigotry and twisted judicial arguments, my leader has remained consistently clear and has refrained from making any arguments based on personal attacks.

When this bill comes to a vote, I will be casting my ballot according to my conscience, on behalf of my constituents and for what I believe will be for the good of the nation. I can say with some authority that the vast majority of my constituents want me to vote in favour of traditional marriage. I will therefore be voting against this bill. I will be casting my vote freely, with no coercion from my leader or my party. I am proud to be able to do so. I hope that all members will vote freely on this matter.

[Inky Mark, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to take part in the debate on Bill C-38, the Liberal bill that proposes to redefine the definition of marriage. My first responsibility is to the people of Dauphin--Swan River--Marquette, and at this time I will say publicly that I will vote against Bill C-38.

Since Christmas I have received tens of thousands of e-mails and letters basically telling me to vote against this bill. Over the last couple of years I have surveyed the riding to seek out the views of the constituency. Overwhelmingly the people of Dauphin--Swan River--Marquette are opposed to changing the traditional definition of marriage, which they define as a union between one man and one woman. The people of Dauphin--Swan River--Marquette believe that the House of Commons, not the courts, should determine the definition of marriage and that this should be done in this place in a free vote.

Over the last two years on a couple of occasions I have met and have had round table discussions with the clergy in Dauphin--Swan River--Marquette. My riding is very large and there are hundreds of churches throughout the riding. The people in the riding are very religious.

I must say that the one church that never attended these meetings was the United Church of Canada. Obviously we can understand why, because it supports same sex marriage. In my view, supported by the clergy, there was no point inviting members of the United Church to the meetings and arguing with them over why the people of Dauphin--Swan River--Marquette should support same sex marriage.

The meetings were well attended. Almost 60 pastors and reverends attended the meetings. The first question was why the government was going down this path. That is a very interesting question. I think Canadians across this land are asking the same question. Why is the Liberal government using all its time and energy to deal with same sex marriage?

There are all kinds of other issues that challenge this country. Health care is number one in most people's minds. The waiting lists are very long. There is a shortage of doctors and nurses in this country, yet look at the time we spend in this House debating same sex marriage.

My response to the clergy was that the Liberal government had missed the boat. It could have dealt with this issue two or three years ago by putting in place a bill that recognized same sex unions. We would not be talking about same sex marriage today, but again the Liberals took the easy way out.

The Liberal government wanted the Supreme Court of Canada to provide the answer. It wanted the Supreme Court to rule in its favour, to make its job easy in terms of pushing forth the same sex marriage issue. It has not been easy and at this point in time Canadians are demonstrating that the Liberal government is going down the wrong path.

Another thing the pastors could not understand and they asked me about was how many countries actually have in place legal same sex marriage. I told them that at that time there were only two, the Netherlands and Belgium, and that Canada would be the third.

It is interesting that even liberal Europe and certainly the northern countries of Denmark, Sweden and Norway would outlaw and not accept same sex marriage. In fact what they have is registered same sex unions. Even France's supreme court ruled that same sex marriage was illegal. It has same sex unions as well.

Prior to Christmas New Zealand passed a bill defining same sex unions, that marriage basically meant a union between a man and a woman. The world around us is sending a loud message that same sex marriage is in a very small minority position.

We must also say that gays and lesbians represent about 2% to 3% of the population. How is it that 2% or 3% of any population base can dictate to the rest of the population, the 97% or 99%? It is just unfair.

Another concern the pastors and clergy had was the business of protection of religion. They were very fearful. Our society has evolved in a way that we contest things. We go to court and if we lose, we appeal to the Supreme Court. We know that sooner or later this is going to end up in the Supreme Court. That is the fear. The churches, religious organizations and institutions really do not have any protection under the law, even if it is a law written in the House. The Supreme Court will rule against the laws of this House. It has in the past and it will in the future. There will be no guarantee of freedom of religion in the country if the bill passes.

In my riding the big concern is about agriculture. Agriculture is the backbone of my riding. People have to make a living. The BSE crisis has decimated a lot of the income. In fact, in Manitoba the cash flow from cattle was about $500 million over the past two years, but it has probably trickled down to $50 million. We will be lucky to realize $50 million with the border closed, yet instead of working on opening the border, the government is working on same sex marriage. So much for the concerns of the tax paying citizens, yet there is no shortage of time for criminalizing the law-abiding gun owners of the country. The government continues to waste money by the billions.

The clergy raised a lot of questions in terms of why the government is going down this path when it does not need to. The government still has time to turn the ship around. It could still deal with this through amendments. The best course of action would be to get rid of the bill and to start from scratch. Put in place same sex union legislation and leave marriage the way it always has been in this country, which is a union between a man and a woman.

The people of Dauphin—Swan River--Marquette want me to bring to this place the message that they do not support same sex marriage. I will certainly vote against Bill C-38.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed feelings that I rise today to speak to Bill C-38, the Liberal government's attempt to change the definition of marriage in Canada.

What pleases me is that I speak today at the end of a period of dialogue with the people of Essex on the bill. Not only have we received literally thousands of e-mails, letters and faxes but I have this past week completed a series of town hall meetings in Essex, the first of their kind in recent memory by an MP in this riding.

Twice before, in 1999 and 2003, the definition of marriage has come before the House on motions, and twice the previous Liberal member of Parliament for Essex toed her Liberal boss's line. I am pleased to state today that this tradition has been broken and will remain so for as long as I am privileged to serve the people of Essex.

What disappoints me, after the recent Supreme Court of Canada reference, is that we are here today by a policy decision of the Liberal government. Let us recall that the Supreme Court reference neither declared heterosexual marriage unconstitutional, nor did it direct Parliament that this institution be changed. Neither did the Liberal government campaign in the recent federal election that it would change the institution of marriage. Though this is a breathtaking volte-face by a Liberal government that has spent 12 years perfecting the art of dodging issues for which it was given a mandate and adopting those it concealed from voters, it comes as no real surprise.

I sit on Parliament's Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. Since October last year we have seen only two pieces of legislation: Bill C-7, a housekeeping bill to move Parks Canada from the Department of Heritage to the Department of the Environment, and Bill C-15, a bill on migratory birds. That is five months and only two pieces of legislation quickly dispensed with.

Bill C-38 is intended to distract from the fact that this Liberal emperor has in fact no legislative clothes. Canadians should forget what the Liberal government is telling them. While the Prime Minister wraps himself up in misguided Liberal notions of our charter and our maple leaf, the Conservative Party of Canada is instead doing the responsible job of a government from the opposition benches.

For 12 years, the best ideas of the Liberal government have been taken from the policy books of the two legacy Conservative parties and pathetically adopted in half measures. Sadly, the only idea that truly belongs to the Liberals is changing marriage. They should listen to the Conservative Party and to Canadians instead.

Canadians would do themselves a great favour by eliminating the Liberal middleman in the next election in favour of a Conservative government that has always stood clear and accountable on maintaining traditional marriage.

Last night I sat rocking my son, Elijah, to sleep. These are not only moments to treasure, as I continue on my journey to what I hope will be old age, but they are clarifying as well. Sarah and I are his mom and dad. He comes from the uniting of our flesh in the security of the lifelong covenant of marriage. The bonding of our life for life was intended from the foundations of the earth to bring forth life. It is rooted in the laws of nature. It is a defining characteristic of marriage that cannot be altered, even if all lower courts in all jurisdictions proclaim so from the rooftops.

Elijah developed in his mother's womb. He entered the world through her labour. She birthed him into her own waiting hands as I supported and encouraged her. Mom nourishes him from her body. He will get lifelong immunities from mother's milk. He also nurses for comfort. Such needs can only be met by his mom. As a man I cannot birth. I cannot nurse. Yet, Elijah is also part of me. While mom comforts him, I centre him. I am his anchor.

Heterosexual marriage has always benefited society, not just here in Canada, but all over the world and all across history. Scientific advances and legislative wordsmithing will never build a better family than that which has pre-existed both scientists and parliaments. The government has the power and duty to recognize this. It does not however have the power to change it.

Bill C-38 not only attempts to strike at society's stabilizing pillar of heterosexual marriage, it threatens to undermine the other stabilizing pillar, the rule of law. Law is stabilizing precisely because it has tradition, because it is rooted in natural law and because it is moral. Moses or Magna Carta, Hammurabi or Blackstone, the Supreme Court and its lower courts cannot look to the charter in 1982 as a break with the past. Nothing in the charter is revolutionary. Within its provisions, crafted by Canadians through their Parliament, there is no new jurisprudence. There is no kernel from which today's courts can produce tomorrow's new precedents.

In self-governments like Canada, the rule of law can only happen with popular backing or consensus. Parliaments and courts risk cleavage with the people if either or both break with history and tradition. Who will respect the law if the law does not reflect their values? Yet the Liberal government risks compounding the lower courts' mistakes by enacting a law which does not reflect the consensus of Canadians.

It is foolish to overlook 10,000 years of received wisdom known as jurisprudence. Lower courts in Canada, and nowhere else in history, threw out the common law recognition that marriage is the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of any other. The jurisprudential principle of stare decisis, to let decisions stand, was cast aside. The courts have ignored their own rationale and in the process have undermined their own security and credibility.

Heterosexual marriage has been self-evident, that is, not needing proof or defence, for thousands of years of human existence. It took until 1866 before Britain's highest court formally recognized marriage as it always existed. The British North America Act never felt it had to clarify gender in marriage; only it divided powers over it because of the need to protect the rights of women and children in divorce. Parliament has never since considered it needed a federal marriage act to tell the courts that marriage is between one male and one female. The courts have until recently held this interpretation as their own tradition.

It pains me to think that the fanciful notions of a few unelected judges have forced the need for presenting evidence of the nature of marriage. Since the courts have thrown their own common law tradition out the window, it falls to this Parliament to enact statute law giving strong and clear direction to the courts.

The Liberal government's Bill C-38 gives the wrong direction. It is up to members of Parliament with courage and backed by popular consensus to amend the bill to enshrine marriage as between one man and one woman. The courts must and will respect such direction.

A house is only as good as its foundation. The Canadian house has stood well on the firm foundations of traditional marriage and respect for the rule of law for over 130 years.

As I rocked my two year old, Elijah, finally to sleep, I wondered what I would be leaving to him. As a father I need to provide him security. As an MP I need to uphold the security and stability of the traditional definition of marriage and the rule of law.

I thank the people of Essex for expressing their firm defence of marriage and the rule of law. On their behalf, I call on colleagues of the House to amend the bill so that the courts will hear and respect that marriage in Canada will be the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of any other.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is real pleasure to take part in this debate on marriage, which is a civil and religious issue.

Our office has received a great deal of input on this bill. I am sure that most of the people of Nanaimo—Alberni prefer to keep the traditional definition of marriage. On September 7, 2004, some 500 people congregated in front of my office to show their support of traditional marriage. There are some people among us who think their own ideas are more profound than those of the Supreme Being, millions of Canadians disagree.

This subject, whether we like it or not, has a very deep and profound religious significance. The judges in several provincial jurisdictions have ruled that the common law understanding of marriage discriminates against homosexual and lesbian couples who wish to marry.

The Supreme Court ruled that while Parliament had the authority to change the definition of marriage, it did not demand that Parliament do so. The Liberals have claimed that this issue is about charter rights. Indeed young Liberals at a recent convention sported badges declaring “It's the charter, stupid”. Well let us talk about the charter.

In the opening statement the charter begins with a small but profound declaration: “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law”.

Among the thousands of letters I have received on this subject, one writer stated, “I fear God, do you?”. I want to state to the House that yes, I also fear God. I am a Christian. Half a lifetime ago I became convinced of the reality of God and I committed my life to Him. I accepted Jesus, the son of God as my saviour and determined at that time to follow Him.

I am glad that the charter lists as the very first of fundamental freedoms, the freedom of religion and conscience. Therefore, I feel welcome as a Christian in my country and in this House, but I fear that the bill is a direct assault not only on marriage and on the family but on freedom of religion itself.

The Liberal government declares that freedom of religion is protected because religious authorities will not be compelled to perform marriages contrary to their faith. These assurances are empty. The foreign affairs minister says to the church to stay out of it. Bishop Henry of Calgary is told by officials from Revenue Canada to desist from criticizing the government or the church's charitable status might be revoked. Or, as I read just today, a news release from my own province from Quesnel, B.C., Dr. Chris Kempling, a school psychologist, has been suspended for three months by the local school board because he wrote a letter criticizing the government's same sex legislation. What about the charter rights of Bishop Henry and Dr. Chris Kempling?

Already marriage officers in British Columbia and Saskatchewan have been advised that they must surrender their licences if they will not perform same sex marriages. What about their fundamental rights? What kind of Prime Minister postures about protecting charter rights while overruling the very charter rights of his own cabinet and half of his caucus? Similarly, the leaders of the Bloc and the NDP are denying the rights of some of their own members by pressuring them to support a party line on this issue. I hope that Canadians are taking note of this issue.

I am proud to be a member of the only party and to serve with the only leader who will protect the rights of his own members, including his future cabinet on votes that involve matters of conscience. That party is the Conservative Party of Canada.

Parliament has already afforded recognition and benefits to other types of relationships. Changing the definition of marriage involves an institution that is the very foundation of society. That institution is the family. Marriage is an institution centred on the inherently procreative relationship between a man and a woman. The right of a child to have both a mother and a father will be negated.

It is almost universally considered a tragedy when a child loses a parent. There are fundamental and well established reasons why most people feel that way. Christians and others of faith already feel the attempts to intimidate and the pressure to keep their views private because the state has prescribed the correct view and what the state has now relegated as antiquated or politically incorrect views do not belong in the public sphere.

This anti-religious bias is not new in the world or unique in Canada. It is the foundation for religious oppression and persecution. When the government asked the Supreme Court to rule whether a pastor, a rabbi or a clergyman could be compelled to perform a marriage contrary to his or her religion, it clearly demonstrated that the Liberal government did not recognize section 2 which deals with fundamental rights. The question would never have been asked by a government that respects the charter. These are already clearly defined charter rights.

However, Christians have no confidence that this government or the politicized courts will act to protect their rights. We understand that the law without enforcement is of no effect.

The government failed the people when it failed to appeal lower court rulings. The court has failed the people by refusing to protect religious rights of Christians and other faiths to follow the teachings of their faith and their conscience when they contradict the new orthodoxy.

This country was founded by men and women of faith, from Champlain and Cartier to Father Brébeuf. Our schools and universities, our hospitals and our colleges were almost without exception founded on principles of faith.

Our own Fathers of Confederation found inspiration in the Bible for our national motto, which adorns our coat of arms to this day, A mari usque ad mare , from sea to sea. This is from Psalm 72, “He shall have dominion also from sea to sea”. Until recently, this very nation was known as the Dominion of Canada for the same reason. It is taken from the Bible, from Psalm 72.

These words are inscribed in the arch over the Peace Tower, along with the words, “Where there is no vision, the people perish”.

The same King Solomon who penned these words, renowned for his wisdom, wrote, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom”.

The member for Kelowna, speaking to Bill C-38, referred to the prayer with which we open the House daily. In that prayer, we address almighty God and we ask for wisdom to make wise laws.

I assure members that I will not be supporting Bill C-38 because it is not wise legislation. It is contrary to the teachings of the Bible. It is contrary to the tradition and practice of Christians and other faiths. It will therefore lead to increasing conflict with those who adhere to religious beliefs and practices.

Over the door in the shadow cabinet room in the offices of the leader of the official opposition are inscribed the words “fear God”. These words have been a part of the foundation of our nation, part of our heritage, and a reminder of the principles of faith and belief in God and service to our countrymen that made our nation the great success that it has been.

It is possible that the Prime Minister and his colleagues may find an abundance of time to contemplate the writing on the wall, for the Conservative Party is committed to defending the traditional definition of marriage and we will certainly give Canadians that opportunity in the coming election. I urge all members to hear the voice of wisdom and stand for the traditional understanding and definition of marriage.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to an issue which is contentious and divisive on both sides of the House, and within each party, and within Canadian society, and even within families. The issue is Bill C-38, a bill that seeks to redefine the traditional definition of marriage.

There is no doubt that there are sincere and deeply held feelings on both sides of this issue. In my own riding the overwhelming response has been in favour of the position taken by the Conservative Party of Canada. This is because my constituents, like the vast majority of Canadians, are somewhere in the middle on this issue. They believe that marriage is a basic heterosexual institution but that same sex couples also have rights to equality within society and that this equality should be recognized and protected.

We believe that the Conservative Party amendments speak to the majority of Canadians who are in the middle on this issue. Our proposal is that the law should continue to recognize the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. At the same time we would propose that other forms of union, whether they be heterosexual or homosexual, civil unions or registered domestic partnerships, should be entitled to the same legal rights, privileges and benefits as marriage.

The middle ground compromise we offer recognizes the valid concerns of those on both sides of the issue. Democracy requires compromise. Where there are differences of opinion and belief, people must come together to resolve the issues that divide them. Bill C-38 offers us an opportunity to meet the democratic requirement, to find a compromise solution through debate and discussion that best satisfies all those who are involved.

I believe that the proposed amendments suggested by the Leader of the Opposition provide the best ground to find a constructive compromise that the vast majority of Canadians will feel comfortable with.

There are clearly three bodies of opinion on this issue within the Canadian public. At one end of the spectrum there is a group which believes that the equality rights of gays and lesbians trump all other considerations and that any restriction on the right to same sex marriage is an unjustifiable discrimination and a denial of human rights. At the other end there is another group which thinks that marriage is such a fundamental social institution not only recognized by law but sanctified by religious faith and that any compromise in terms of allowing same sex couples equal rights and benefits is unacceptable.

Many of these types of unions are subject to provincial jurisdiction under their responsibility for civil law, but there are also federal issues related to rights and benefits. Our party will move amendments to ensure that all couples in provincially recognized unions are recognized and have rights and benefits equal to those of married couples under federal law.

We would ensure that same sex couples have the same rights and benefits as married couples when it comes to matters such as pensions, tax obligations or immigration matters. We would ensure that no federal law would treat same sex couples any differently from married couples.

We believe this approach will meet the needs of those Canadians who believe that marriage is and should remain an institution which, as Justice La Forest said in the Egan decision, is by nature heterosexual, and also those who are concerned to recognize the equal status of gays and lesbians under the law.

The approach is not only consistent with the beliefs of the vast majority of Canadians, it is also consistent with the emerging practice in many parts of the industrialized world. Around the world there are only two countries which have legislated same sex marriage at the national level, Belgium and the Netherlands. In both countries there are some areas related to adoption or marriage of non-nationals of those countries which still make them slightly different from opposite sex marriage.

Aside from that, same sex marriage has only been allowed through provincial or state level court decisions in several Canadian provinces and the state of Massachusetts. By far, the vast majority of jurisdictions have gone the route of recognizing civil unions, domestic partnerships or reciprocal beneficiaries.

Among the countries which have brought in these laws are France, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Finland, Germany, Portugal and New Zealand. I do not think any of these countries, considered among the most progressive in the world, could be considered violators of human rights.

Similarly, in the United States only one state, Massachusetts, has recognized same sex marriage through a state court decision, even though the governor and a majority in the legislature opposed it. Yet in many states, among them Vermont, California, Maine, Hawaii, New Jersey and the District of Columbia, every one of these progressive so-called blue states have brought in civil unions or similar legislative recognitions. It strikes me as a perfectly reasonable compromise for Canadian society to accept exactly the same position as these countries and states.

This Conservative compromise option may not satisfy those who believe that equality rights for same sex couples are an absolute, which cannot be compromised by accepting anything less than full marriage, or that the heterosexual status of marriage is an absolute, which cannot be compromised by recognizing equal rights for other kinds of unions. However, it will satisfy the vast majority of Canadians who are seeking common ground on this issue, who are looking for a reasonable, moderate compromise that respects the rights of same sex couples while preserving the time-honoured institution of marriage.

This compromise is the Canadian way and it is the option that only the Conservative Party is prepared to offer. We believe that if the government squarely and honestly put this option, preserving marriage while recognizing equal rights of same sex couples through civil unions or other means, it would be the option that most Canadians would choose.

The Conservative Party is not proposing a reactionary solution that would violate human rights, as the government alleges. We are proposing a moderate compromise position that would put Canada in the company of some of the most liberal and progressive countries in the western world. In fact, one could justly say that the position of the Liberal government insisting upon an absolutist approach on this issue is on the extreme, is not a reasonable approach and that the approach by most of us on this side of the House is more reflective of Canadian values.

There is no need to go to extremes in this debate. To accept a compromise that respects the will of the majority, upholds rights and preserves our deepest positions, we must accept the amendments that the Conservative Party has moved to this bill.

I have talked at great lengths with my constituents. I have surveyed and polled my constituents. The vast majority support the traditional definition of marriage. I have friends and even family members who are homosexual and even in that community they are divided on this issue.

I believe the Conservative Party is correct to offer a compromise that will satisfy the vast majority of Canadians while respecting the equality of all Canadians. I hope the Liberals and other parties will accept the Conservative Party's position so we can focus on more important issues, such as health care, education, taxation and government corruption.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise proudly in support of Bill C-38. It addresses the issue of equality of gay and lesbian Canadians in our country by entrenching the right to civil marriage.

The courts have consistently and repeatedly found that laws which excluded same sex marriage were in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For this reason seven Canadian provinces and one Canadian territory have already legislated same sex marriages for gay and lesbian Canadians. The provinces of British Columbia, my native province; Saskatchewan; Manitoba; Ontario; Quebec; Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as the Yukon Territory have already addressed this issue through the courts. Now it is up to our country's highest political body, the House of Commons, to end discrimination in marriage against gay and lesbian Canadians.

There are those in the House who will not support this legislation. I was shocked to hear that the Leader of the Opposition will not only oppose the bill, but is also eager to repeal Bill C-38 should he form the next government. In this way he intends to perpetuate discrimination against gay and lesbian Canadians.

By the same token, despite the refusal to accept equality by the Leader of the Opposition, I see a small glimmer of hope for that party, as a small number of moderates such as the member for Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, the member for Calgary Centre-North and the member for Newmarket—Aurora have all indicated with great courage that they will stand up for equality of gay and lesbian Canadians. Those few Conservative members are showing great courage and deserve our recognition.

I also want to recognize the many members of the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois who are supporting this important step for equality.

The Leader of the Opposition will end the protection and equality afforded by this bill if he comes to power. Just how will he do that? How will he make invalid that fundamental right? What other fundamental rights will he withdraw from Canadians? He speaks of separate but equal being the tenet of his party in this case.

I would like to talk about the proposal of separate but equal that those members of the House are talking about in an effort to shield the fundamental discriminatory stand that they are taking.

We have not heard much about this doctrine since the days of the great civil rights struggles for the African-American community in the United States. The appalling segregation of the Black community in the southern United States was based on that same doctrine which somehow purports that separate treatment allows for a measure of equality.

I would like to paraphrase Martin Luther King when he talked to an end of the doctrine of separate but equal. He said that now was the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of separation to the sunlit path of justice.

I believe in uncompromised equality. It is important to remember that the courts in the United States progressively demolished this fundamentally flawed doctrine of separate but equal in the case of segregation.

Now similar court decisions in Canada have brought us to the debate that we are having today, to ratify an end to discrimination against gay and lesbian Canadians in marriage. Separate but equal is not going to address this fundamental notion of equality.

We in the New Democratic Party have taken a clear stand to end discrimination against gay and lesbian Canadians. It is a stand based on our fundamental belief that discrimination is not to be tolerated. The NDP will not perpetuate or condone discrimination. That has been the courageous history of our party.

As our leader, the member for Toronto--Danforth, said so eloquently earlier today, the New Democratic Party has stood up in the past for equality for Canadians of Chinese origin, first nations peoples, women, and all Canadians. We have stood up for equality in all those areas and we have also been committed throughout the history of our existence to preserving religious freedoms.

I would like to say a few words on the balance that this bill affords to religious freedoms. It is important I believe that religious freedoms be protected while we end discrimination against gay and lesbian Canadians in civil marriage legislation. We believe that this bill achieves that protection.

When Bill C-38 becomes law, will the status of marriage be any less? Will people in heterosexual marriages lose any of the financial, legal or social benefits of marriage? Will people who are already married feel less married? Will various religious institutions be forced to perform same sex marriages? The answer to all of these questions is unequivocally no.

I have a very clear answer for hon. members who are opposed to the bill and who fear that the bill, although it is not clear how, would somehow hurt Canadian families.

We will help Canadian families, not by opposing Bill C-38 but by fighting for the dignity and respect of all Canadians. We will help Canadian families, not by opposing Bill C-38 but by creating opportunities and good jobs. We will help Canadian families to preserve and protect our environment.

We will help Canadian families, not by opposing Bill C-38 but by improving public health care, by making life more affordable and secure for Canadian families, by ensuring access to affordable education, and by restoring integrity and accountability in government that has been sorely impacted by the ongoing revelations of gross financial misconduct by the Liberal government, as has been revealed by the Gomery commission.

We will help Canadian families most of all by taking firm and decisive action to fight the growing child poverty, the growing insecurity and the growing homelessness that is a national disgrace for all Canadians. Homelessness and child poverty is coming at a time of record corporate profits, record bank profits and record corporate tax gifts for the wealthy, as we saw in the budget.

We will help Canadian families and families the world over by strengthening Canada's independent voice for peace, for human rights and for fair trade on the world stage.

Those are the issues that matter most to Canadian families and those are the issues on which we will continue to fight in the House of Commons.

During last year's election campaign I knocked on over 6,000 doors in Burnaby and New Westminster and spoke to Canadians throughout my community. On doorsteps, in public meetings, in media interviews, any time the issue came up, I pledged to support marriage legislation that would bring equality to gay and lesbian Canadians. I will keep my commitment to my constituents and to all Canadians.

For all those reasons I will be supporting the bill and the many gay and lesbian Canadians who are striving for equality and an end to discrimination.

[Art Hanger, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments of the NDP member who spoke eloquently about his position and intentions in the vote on Bill C-38.

I am flabbergasted in the sense that this whole issue of the charter argument keeps coming up time and time again. If we sit back and look at it and analyze what is happening with the use of the charter in this country, the Liberals, the NDP and whoever else supports this kind of initiative, it is being used by them to cover up a myriad of sins. When I say a myriad of sins, look at it: decriminalization of marijuana, decriminalization of prostitution, and same sex marriage. It is all in the same basket, and the Liberals and NDP love to use the charter to that end. It is to the detriment of this country.

It is 37 years ago that I stood before an altar before God and declared my vows in my marriage. It was before God that I was united in holy matrimony. The gravity of that moment was not lost to me because it was for one man and one woman to be joined together as it has been over the centuries, since the beginning of creation. Never in my wildest dreams did I ever imagine that we would be here today on the verge of redefining an institution that has stood as the union of one man and one woman since the beginning of time. But here we are.

I can remember this debate taking place 10 years ago in the House when a private member's initiative was brought forward to have the union of same sex individuals under that legislation. I spoke to that bill at that time. Twice the member that introduced the bill stood up on a point of order to object to my comments about the marriage of same sex people. Twice the Speaker told him to sit down because if the Speaker were to tell me to shut up, he would be doing an injustice to the House. He said that this is a place for strong opinions and we had better have strong opinions on this issue because a whole generation to come and beyond are going to be affected by what we do and what we decide in the House.

Needless to say, that bill was defeated, but here we are again today, 10 years later, with the same initiative coming forward, this time from the government of the day. The very titles of marriage are gender specific, husband and wife. The Supreme Court itself remarked in Egan v Canada decision that marriage is by nature heterosexual. Who has the right to define an institution that exists in all cultures in all corners of the world? It predates the existence of our own country by millennia, in fact since creation, had that been the case.

My personal feeling is that we must put this to the people in a national referendum. On this matter I am representing my own views and not necessarily the views of my party. If we are to have a free vote on this subject, we must also have free speech. I encourage all members of the House to do the same. The family is the foundation of our society and marriage is the cornerstone of that foundation. The preamble of the Canadian Bill of Rights recognizes this and expressly affirms:

--that the Canadian Nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions.

The proposed redefinition of marriage is the most important social issue that has ever faced our country. Capital punishment and even abortion really do not equal it.

The Prime Minister, and this goes back to my colleague from the NDP, says religious institutions will not be compelled to perform same sex marriages should this legislation pass.

Who is he kidding? When a Christian printer from Toronto is fined for refusing to do business with a gay and lesbian advocacy group, how can he say religious institutions will not be next and be compelled to perform same sex marriages?

When mayors across the country are hauled up in front of human rights commissions for refusing to issue gay pride proclamations, how can he say now religious institutions will not be compelled to perform same sex marriages?

When charitable tax status of a Catholic diocese is threatened by a Canada Revenue Agency official for a pastoral letter opposing gay marriage, how can he say religious institutions will not be compelled to perform same sex marriages?

When this government orders padres in the military to perform same sex marriages, how can he say religious institutions will not be compelled to do the same?

Any politician who says religious institutions will be protected from having to perform same sex marriages is either disingenuous or naive. Should this legislation pass, what will happen next?

Even if we were to believe the falsehood that religious institutions would not be compelled to perform same sex marriages, there are other forms of religious persecution that would occur should this legislation pass.

For example, would religious institutions be required to recognize same sex unions? If two people are married in accordance with the new legislation and then present themselves to their local church, synagogue or mosque to request membership, is that religious institution required to recognize them and accept them in its organization as married or to commune them?

If the religious institution declines to accept them as members because of its adherence to the traditional definition of marriage, how will this legislation protect the church and its members from attack under the human rights legislation?

Would a religious institution risk losing its status as a charitable institution, if it were to continue to refuse to recognize same sex marriage or if it were to teach its members, and prospective members, that such a relationship is the perversion of what marriage ought to be, according to God?

It is plainly visible what this legislation will lead to. Just ask Bishop Henry of Calgary. The charitable tax status of his diocese was threatened by a Canada Revenue Agency official after he wrote a pastoral letter stating that the Prime Minister's views on abortion and gay marriage contravene the Catholic faith. It was the bishop's responsibility. He was compelled to deliver that message.

Passage of this legislation will only accelerate the religious persecution that is already under way in this country. Since that particular time, guess what has happened to Bishop Henry? He has been called up before the Alberta Human Rights Commission and the complaints about his opposition to homosexuality and same sex marriage are being questioned. He is under threat to freedom of speech, and so is the rest of the country.

Who has the right to say what marriage is? The courts? The politicians? I suggest neither. The Constitution says Parliament can legally define marriage, but that legal recognition reflects what marriage is, not what some social engineers want it to be. The Supreme Court of Canada backs up this assertion.

Allow me to quote from the Egan v. Canada decision, upon which I will conclude. It states:

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 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. It would be possible to legally define marriage to include homosexual couples, but this would not change the biological and social realities that underlie the traditional marriage.

On that note, I urge all members in the House to vote against this bill.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I am a dreamer. I take pride in that. I am a dreamer in terms of what the country can be. Following that member is not my kind of dream.

I want to also make reference to the fact that religious freedoms have been protected. The Supreme Court has stated:

...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.

Concerning the debate about whether the feds have the jurisdiction to do that, in my home province of Ontario the government has already taken action and it is law at that level. That protection is clearly there 100% in Ontario. I know other legislation is being looked at across the country as provinces adhere to their Supreme Court rulings.

Let me also talk a bit about the notion of separate but equal, a compromise, which is often put by the members of the official opposition. We have seen this before. We know what happened with our neighbours to the south when they tried separate but equal with the school systems as a compromise approach to having to deal with their federal court, which ordered that separation discontinue. It made the case that separate was not equal.

One of our own courts, the British Columbia Court of Appeal, has said:

marriage...is the only road to true equality for same-sex couples. Any other form of recognition of same-sex relationships, including the...falls short of true equality.

There is no compromise on these rights. There is no nice, safe little political ground to go to where we can appease everyone. This is one of those where we have to stand up and state where we are. The notion that there is a compromise is not upheld in law. From a practical point of view, I do not see how one can say there are two tiers of rights in the country. We either have rights or we do not. Bill C-38 will allow all Canadians to say, “I have my rights”.

In closing, the young people of Canada will ask, what is the big deal? The big deal is that we are not passing this as easily and quickly as we should. Fellow members of this place believe Bill C-38 deserves to be law because all our constituents deserve their rights. We not only have that opportunity; we have that responsibility. I intend to cast my precious vote in favour of my constituents and their rights.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate. At the outset, it is my intention to cast my precious vote in favour of Bill C-38, in favour of the charter and in favour of all my constituents having all their charter rights.

I want to begin by talking about the charter. On Sunday I was in my constituency office and I had my 12 year old daughter with me. Unrelated to this bill or this debate, I had a copy of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms there and I gave Kayla a copy of it. I said to her that every word in it was a right that she had because she was a Canadian.

I would be lying to my daughter were I to say that to her and then stand in this place and vote against Bill C-38. I am not about to do that. The fact is we have a charter. My mom would say to me, when I was facing something extremely difficult, that if it were easy, everybody would do it. One of the reasons we are so proud is because of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and because of the laws that we have put in place. When I travel and represent this great nation, I know I am proud.

If those things were so easy to come by, other nations would not have the respect that they do for Canada. When debates on issues of rights come up, when right and wrong for many of us is so clear, we vote in favour of rights. It gives us moral leverage on the international stage. When we start comparing our economic strength and economic leverage versus military leverage and strength that we might have, we are not in the game. When we start talking about moral leverage and moral strength and a moralistic society, it is not about going to religious extremes. It is about being prepared to stand up where it matters, which is in this place, to defend rights. We do that as members by casting our precious votes in favour of those rights and then by standing up and being prepared to defend those rights.

I am not a lawyer, I do not pretend to be, but the charter is pretty straightforward. Article 15(1) 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...

I did not say to Kayla that this clause would only apply if her life took this direction or that direction. I meant she had every right contained in the charter.

Section 28 states:

Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.

Article 24(1) states:

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 has taken place with regard to this issue. We have been everywhere and now it is back where it belongs, here in the people's House.

I am from Hamilton, a labour town and a steel town. I am also the labour critic. I want to put on the record that the Canadian labour movement, one of the most pioneering entities to fight for rights and justice in the country, has clearly put its strength and reputation on the line with regard to this issue and Bill C-38.

We have the United Steelworkers of America in Hamilton which represents 255,000 members. It has stated:

The Steelworkers is proud to represent its lesbian and gay members. As a matter of policy, the Steelworkers is committed to advancing the rights of lesbians and gays in both their workplaces and their communities. This extends to ensuring that they have the same right as their co-workers and fellow citizens to access the important social institution of civil marriage.

This letter was signed by Ken Neumann, national director.

CEP, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, has stated:

It is quite sobering to think that not that long ago being gay, lesbian or bisexual was a criminal offence and the federal government conducted campaigns to fire them from the public service...We would add our voices to those who advocate that gays and lesbians who wish to marry should be afforded access to the legal institutions of marriage. It is a matter of fairness and a commitment to end discrimination.

Buzz Hargrove, on behalf of the Canadian Auto Workers which represents 260,000 members, has stated:

I am proud that our union used our collective power to bring about workplace changes in winning rights for gays and lesbians. And I am proud that our country as a whole is seen as a world leader on equal rights for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender members of society. Same-sex marriage is an important step in the struggle for equality. It's time to take it.

Lastly, the Canadian Labour Congress itself, representing over 2.5 million working people from coast to coast to coast, has states:

We believe that the Government of Canada should be bound by its own equality guarantees, including the Charter of Individual Rights and Freedoms and by its stated commitments to human rights nationally and internationally. The Government also has a positive obligation to promote equality and acceptance of all people in this country including gay and lesbian citizens. Denial of access to marriage for same-sex couples contradicts these commitments and runs contrary to the promotion of equality.

Make no mistake about it. The Canadian labour movement is supportive of Bill C-38 becoming law and that all their members and our constituents receive their full rights under the Constitution.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when the debate on Bill C-38 began, I knew it would be surrounded by a lot of emotion and that perhaps there would be some diametrically opposed positions taken. This is a topic that stirs up some strong feelings, of course.

I think that the majority of the Bloc Québécois members on this side of the House have discussed this and are in favour of the bill. I am in favour of it and I will tell you why.

This is the tenth time that the matter of same sex marriage has been brought up in the House of Commons. The Minister of Justice has had the courage to bring it back one more time so that it may at last be enacted and same sex couples may be assured of the same rights as any other people who want to make a life together. It is not about sex. It is about justice. It is also about love.

I recall the speech by the leader of the Bloc Québécois who spoke a great deal about love. That is, after all, the bottom line to it all. People who want to be together, be they two men, two women or a man and a woman, are people who love each other. They want to live together, to protect each other, to share their lives.

That is part of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Everyone has the right to be happy. If that is a way for them to be happy, let us allow them to marry and be happy, at last. We are talking of civil unions here.

The bill even protects the religious institutions by ensuring that the government does not interfere in areas over which it does not have jurisdiction. The precise reason for this being included in the bill is to satisfy some of our colleagues, the Conservatives among others. This appears, however, not to be enough for them.

Let us follow the logic as I have heard it in this House—and I stand to be corrected if I am wrong. They said marriage is reserved for having children, but in 2005 people are no longer having children. In Quebec, anyway, I know that our birth rate is very low. So does that mean that people who do not want children should not be allowed to marry? The argument could be taken that far.

Does this mean that a person whose spouse has died—like myself—and who has no desire to have any more children, cannot remarry because he or she is not going to have a family? This is illogical, but it is the logic being used when they tell us that marriage is about having a family.

In our times and in the current context, it does not make sense to limit the argument in this way. It is a diversion to try to have us see things a certain way or to justify a position against same sex marriage.

Are we holding up progress by making democratic reforms here? Just look at those who have already gotten married so far. How did they manage? They went to court and the court ruled against the province to allow these people to get married.

If we do not resolve this at the federal level once and for all, then every time a gay or lesbian couple wants to get married, they will have to go to court and spend a lot of money. This costs the government money as well. At the end of the day, these couples will win and get married anyway and the problem will still not be resolved. We must not bury our heads in the sand. This situation has to be resolved.

Everyone has equal rights. We know full well that for many years the gay community has had many challenges. Gays and lesbians have been looked upon unfavourably and have been mistreated by the public because they were not necessarily understood.

Homosexuality is a fact. A person is either homosexual or not. It is not an illness. It is simply a person's attraction to someone of the same sex. They have every right to live this way, there is nothing wrong with it.

There is no sense in trying to show that it is wrong to live this way. We live in a modern society and we are well aware of our reality.

Such is our reality. We must be able to deal with it. We must ensure that the rights of every such individual are respected. Not so long ago, we women were nobodies. We did not have the right to vote. So we fought the battles we needed to fight to get where we are. Today, women sit in Parliament and have the right to vote. They earned this right, and it will never be taken away from them. This is now part of our democracy.

I want to take this one step further to try to find a solution for people who want to marry. There are horror stories about this. I have heard everything. It is not always easy for homosexuals to admit their homosexuality to their family, parents and entourage, because society still does not fully accept it.

That said, we can try to imagine the process homosexuals have to go through if they want to marry. At one point, barely 30 or 40 years ago, homosexuals adopted their partners to ensure that their entire inheritance would not be lost in the event of a death. What happened if they were not married? What consideration were they given? They were not even considered to be common-law spouses. Consequently, the family could take the entire estate; it could even contest an inheritance because the individual who had shared the partner's life was considered a non-person.

If someone puts a lot into a relationship, into a couple, if someone invests in a house and property, that property has to be protected and we must ensure that if both of them invested, both of them reap the benefits. If one of them dies, at a minimum the inheritance must go to the other or be handled in accordance with the person's wishes. It should not be possible to deprive someone of what he or she has built up over the years along with his or her spouse.

That is not all. There is not only the legal aspect, of course, but also the emotional aspect. We have to change and progress.

In my riding, there are certainly some differences of opinion. Some people are in favour and others less so. However, we do not meet with such great reluctance, I do not think, as my colleagues in the Conservative Party in their ridings. This proves that Quebec is indeed distinct and very different. People are more open-minded in Quebec. However, I have met some priests who told me that it just does not make sense. On the other hand, I have also met some priests who told me that it was time to take care of this and that they hoped I would vote in favour in this bill.

But people think differently. They do not feel any need at all to pour out their feelings in public. Some do, but others feel no need. Often it is the silent majority that supports us.

It is therefore very important to realize that we have moved forward, we have made progress, and it is time to settle this issue. When the Conservatives told us a little while ago that they did not want this to be one of the government's priorities, it occurred to me that we have dithered too long on this issue. This has been dragging on for too long and we should settle it once and for all. If we were to put our shoulders to the wheel now, instead of talking about it for weeks, months or even years, it would already be settled.

I sincerely believe that we must support this bill. Let us give all human beings on this earth, in Canada and Quebec, a chance to be equal. Let us give everyone a chance to be happy, to be in love and to live well. If that happens through marriage between two people who love each other, regardless of whether they are men or women, for me, it does not matter: it is a sign of love between two people. I hope, therefore, that we will win this vote in the next few weeks.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the bill we are debating, Bill C-38, is entitled the civil marriage act. I am proud to speak up on behalf of my constituents who overwhelmingly oppose this legislation. Just as important, they question the government's priorities. Is having same sex marriage really the best way to advance the well-being of Canadians today?

Many of my colleagues here have made an excellent case for traditional marriage as the most important social institution for bringing order to society and providing the best environment for the raising of children.

Others have pointed out that the government is a walking contradiction when it says that same sex marriage is a human right but then at the same time says that Liberal backbenchers may have a free vote on the issue, a free vote on a basic human right. Maybe the Prime Minister does not think it is a basic right after all.

Other colleagues have pointed out that almost every other country in the world, along with the United Nations, has rejected the notion that same sex marriage is a human right. They have made their cases well. That is why I will talk about this issue from a very different perspective.

As I have reflected on this issue, and now this legislation, over the last many months, I have come to realize that the true significance of legalizing same sex marriage goes way beyond the issue of marriage, as important as that is.

Equally important is the issue of whether or not the Canadian government and the courts even have the authority to alter the definition of marriage. Put another way, are there any limits at all on what the government is entitled to do? Does private civil society even exist or does everything fall within the ambit of government? That is the issue I want to take up in the short time that is allotted to me.

There is a first question we need to ask. Why do we have governments? Why does government exist? The philosopher John Locke would argue that government exists so that we can ensure the maximum possible protection of our inherent rights. In other words, he believed that we are born with certain rights that are inalienable, that is, they are rights that cannot be taken from us. These are rights such as freedom of speech, association, religion, conscience and movement, and the right to own and use property as we choose.

Locke argued that governments and courts are created by free people to ensure that the strongest simply do not override the rights of the weakest. Thus, the people delegate to government and to courts the authority to ensure that all people have their natural rights protected.

But Locke and others also knew that governments themselves can be a danger to these natural rights that we are born with. That is why, going back to the time of St. Thomas Aquinas, it has been argued that the people have a duty, a moral obligation, to reject man-made law if it conflicts with natural law, the law that says we are born with these rights which cannot be taken from us.

This is the same argument that Martin Luther King made regarding the supremacy of the natural law over man-made law in his famous “Letter from a Birmingham City Jail”.

It is why Locke and the American founders wanted to place limits on government and limits on the courts. It is why they acknowledged the natural rights of all people in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Bill of Rights.

It is why the United Nations declares that all people everywhere are free, irrespective of what their governments may declare.

In other words, all of western civilization rests on the notion that government is limited in its authority and that if freedom means anything it means that individual people have the inalienable right to act freely, so long as they are not hurting others, without fear of government interference.

We might be thinking that this is all very interesting, but how does it apply in the current context? I argue that marriage is a voluntary institution that was created and preserved by free people long before governments were created. Therefore, marriage is an institution that the state does not have the authority to change.

Let me explain. Let us assume that the government gets its authority from the people and the government's job is to preserve the freedoms that are our birthright.

Now let us imagine a situation where the government said that it was going to take away our freedom to associate with whomever we wanted. Obviously we would say that that law is unjust. We would undoubtedly disobey that man-made law because it is not in harmony with what we know to be the natural law, the law that is written on every human heart, the law that says we have the natural right to associate with whomever we choose.

I think the debate over the definition of marriage is analogous to the example I have just given. I argue that the government and the courts do not have the authority to redefine marriage. I argue that if we grant the state the authority to redefine marriage, which is an expression of our rights to freedom of speech, religion, conscience and association, then we are also accepting that the state has the right to redefine or eliminate those freedoms themselves.

Traditional marriage is an expression of our inherent rights and freedoms. Let the state redefine marriage and then we are declaring that our rights are no longer inherent, that they are not our birthright. Instead, we are saying that our rights are ours to use at the whim of the Prime Minister and the courts.

Let us note, by the way, that our inherent freedoms also allow gay people the same freedoms as straight people. Gay people are also free to associate with whomever they want, to bind themselves to whomever they choose and to speak freely about it, but that does not mean they have a right to rip open the institution of marriage and call it their own.

Let us consider a different example. Family is defined as people who are related by blood, marriage or adoption. If the state can change social institutions that precede the state, then on what grounds could we say that the state cannot redefine marriage?

If two friends want to be known as family, are we now required to change the definition of family to include people who are related by friendship? The same logic which says that traditional marriage discriminates against same sex unions would also say that the traditional definition of family discriminates against other kinds of relationships, like the relationship between two friends.

I raise this because advocates of same sex marriage say that traditional marriage discriminates against same sex marriage, but when they say this, they are equivocating with the word “discrimination”. They are using it in two different ways, knowing that the term discrimination can be a very emotionally charged word that can suggest prejudice, but they also know, or should know, that it is a term which can be used to help point to the differences between categories.

Let me give an example. When we put something in a category, we are discriminating against everything else that is not in that category. If we have a category of things that are blue, then we are leaving out all the yellows, but that does not mean that blue is better or worse than yellow. It just means that they are different.

That is why I do not buy the argument that a same sex union is not equal to traditional marriage. They are two separate things, but we can grant exactly the same set of rights to both opposite sex and same sex couples.

Let us remember that rights are allegedly the issue here. The only difference is that their unions would have different names, which would signify the different makeup of the relationship, but equal legal rights will only satisfy same sex couples if their real concern is to be equal before the law.

For some people, however, I suspect the issue is not equal rights at all. For some same sex marriage advocates, the issue is acceptance, which is what they think they will get if their union is called marriage. I am sorry to say that I think they are mistaken. Government simply cannot legislate acceptance any more than it can legislate that people should have common sense.

Now I want to address the Prime Minister's assurance that the bill will not affect our inherent right to freedom of religion. If we read the bill, we will note that it does not say anything about freedom of religion. Actually, it only announces that it will protect the right of clergy to not perform a same sex wedding. What about all those other situations where we may wish to express a faith position on this issue? This is what I warned about earlier in my speech.

Once we decide that the state has the authority to change an institution that came about as a result of us exercising our basic freedoms, then we concede that the state can take away or alter those freedoms themselves. A government that does not have to respect our basic inherent rights will now proclaim that if we speak against same sex marriage then we will have our freedom of speech taken away. I am sure that many people who are watching this speech may think I am exaggerating, but I am not.

During the last election campaign, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency told church groups that opposed same sex marriage that if they spoke out they would risk losing their charitable status. Churches that spoke in favour of same sex marriage received no such threats. Bishop Henry in Calgary is being hauled before the Alberta Human Rights Commission right now because he spoke out against same sex marriage.

If time permitted, I would provide many other examples of how our freedoms of speech and religion are being curbed today.

In the face of these facts, the Prime Minister's assurances that freedom of religion will be protected in the future ring very hollow. Why should we believe that freedom of religion will be protected in the future when this government persecutes religious groups today?

My time is up. I argue that this government is breaking new ground, but it is breaking it on private property. The government is sowing the wind and Canada will reap the whirlwind.

Bill C-38 is an attack on our freedoms and it should be defeated. I urge colleagues to vote against it.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the National Post has stated:

--their opponents seek to tear it up or vitiate it through use of the notwithstanding clause.

The result is that Canadians are being sold a false bill of goods...they are hearing misinformation and scaremongering from a government that seeks to ram the issue down their throats with a minimum of debate.

The National Post concluded that the dishonest approach the government had adopted was an insult, and I agree.

In January 2004 the justice minister asked the Supreme Court of Canada to rule on whether or not the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman was unconstitutional. In its ruling of December 2004 the court refused to answer, putting the issue back into the hands of Parliament, and rightfully so.

The Conservative Party has been very critical of this government's attempt to duck difficult issues such as same sex marriage by deferring to the court.

When the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the lower court decision that determined same sex marriages should be legal under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we immediately called on the justice minister to appeal the ruling, but he refused.

Effectively, the Liberal government sanctioned the court's ruling on social policy matters, rendered the justice committee's analysis of this issue irrelevant, ignored the majority vote in Parliament to protect the traditional definition of marriage and stifled the voices of Canadians. Furthermore, the Liberal Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister reneged on their commitment to protect the traditional definition of marriage.

On June 8, 1999, the Deputy Prime Minister, the then justice minister, stood in this House and said:

The institution of marriage is of great importance to large numbers of Canadians, and the definition of marriage as found in the hon. member's motion is clear in law.

As stated in the motion, the definition of marriage is already clear in law. It is not found in a statute, but then not all law exists in statutes, and the law is no less binding and no less the law because it is found in the common law instead of in a statute.

The Liberal Deputy Prime Minister also stated, and listen carefully:

Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages. I fundamentally do not believe that it is necessary to change the definition of marriage in order to accommodate the equality issues around same sex partners which now face us as Canadians.

The government has, without any constitutional requirements to do so, changed the definition of marriage. Another promise made, another promise broken. Given this broken promise and the many other broken promises, how can any of us trust the justice minister's assertion now that religious freedoms will be protected under the law?

The so-called protection that the government has offered within Bill C-38 regarding religious freedoms is totally inadequate. The Liberal government has been totally dishonest with Canadians suggesting otherwise.

The government has only proposed one tiny clause to protect religious freedom, a clause that states that religious officials will not be forced to solemnize marriages. It has done this knowing full well that the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that this clause is not within federal jurisdiction. The solemnization of marriage is a provincial responsibility.

Furthermore, nothing in Bill C-38 addresses issues currently facing churches, temples, synagogues and mosques, such as being forced to rent out space for same sex marriages.

The solemnization of marriage might be outside the federal jurisdiction, but religious protections are well within this government's sphere. Parliament can ensure that no religious body will have its charitable status challenged because of its beliefs or practices. Parliament can ensure that beliefs and practices regarding marriage will not affect the eligibility of a church, synagogue, temple or religious organization to receive funds.

The government may have neglected to protect religious freedoms in Bill C-38, but the official opposition will not. We will be proposing amendments to provide substantive protections for religious institutions in the context of federal law. We will propose these amendments to provide full recognition of same sex relationships as possessing equivalent rights and privileges.

More important, we will propose an amendment to provide clear recognition of the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. We will do so knowing that we have the support of Canadians. The vast majority of Canadians are asking the government to do the right thing, to keep its word and protect the traditional definition of marriage.

Committees of the House

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this would end up being a very short answer because the answer is no, I cannot think of one time when the Prime Minister has done anything really significant to slay the democratic deficit.

I remember all the rhetoric. I remember the Prime Minister saying he was mad as hell, that everything was going to change, and that Ottawa was going to look different. This of course was when he was campaigning for the top job of the Liberal Party of Canada. Maybe it is easier to make promises before one gets there.

There was promise after promise. We were told that we were going to slay this democratic deficit. Ottawa was going to look different. No longer was the key going to be, “who you know in the PMO”.

In my speech today I listed a litany of patronage appointments. How is that anything good? I will not say contempt, but there is a disregard for the committee's opinion. We were going to empower committees. That was going to be one of the key elements that the Prime Minister was going to use to go after the democratic deficit. We were going to empower these committees to be masters of their own destiny. They were going to play a significant role in appointments, whether the Supreme Court or a review of appointments.

Look what happened in this case. Our committee registered an opinion. We evaluated the candidate on merits. We evaluated the context within which he came to the committee. We said that it was bad on all counts, seven to four, and we were going to recommend against this appointment. What did the Prime Minister do? He turned around and said that he was going to appoint him anyway with no respect for the process and no real commitment to getting rid of the democratic deficit in this country.

I will offer this much in wrapping up the answer. If the Prime Minister and the government do not want to do anything about the democratic deficit, they can all step aside and the Conservative Party of Canada will step in and do the job as the government in this country.

We are concerned about ensuring that there are more powerful individual MPs. That is why we are having a free vote on Bill C-38. I think that is very significant. The other party is not doing that. The cabinet is going to have to vote with the government on this one. There is no freedom. How does that help empower the people through their elected representatives? It does not do that. If the government members do not want to do the job, we will be glad to do it for them.

Marriage

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would expect that the legislative committee will consider Bill C-38 in a serious way, as do legislative and House committees when they consider bills before them. As to the nature and scope of that consideration, that is a determination of the committee and its chairman.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in June 2003, the work of the justice committee on marriage was totally pre-empted when the Government of Canada refused to appeal the ruling of the Ontario Court of Appeal which incredibly and instantly redefined marriage in Ontario.

Will the Minister of Justice ask the recently formed legislative committee on Bill C-38 to hold meaningful public hearings to receive important input by Canadian organizations and individuals?

Civil Marriage Act

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to Bill C-38, perhaps the most contentious piece of legislation that I have debated since coming to this House in 2000.

Debates on moral issues are always contentious and intense because arguments for or against these issues are based on values. It is extremely difficult, and rightfully so, for most people to abandon their values, especially if those values have been ingrained and nurtured over many years within the home, school and the church.

The most important aspect of today's debate, in my opinion, will be respecting the views and values of those on either side of this issue, respecting that regardless of what others say, many Canadians will refuse to accept the fact that marriage is anything but the union of one man and one woman.

That refusal is based on long held values that no one can or should deny. That refusal is based on the principal premise that the union of one man and one woman is a very unique and sacred relationship and that it is at the root of all humanity.

As Justice La Forest pointed out in Egan v. Canada in 1995:

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'etre transcends all of these and is firmly anchored in the biological...realities that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to procreate....

As John H. Redecop, professor emeritus of political science, wrote on March 5, 2005:

--[La Forest's] perspective has been affirmed, since time immemorial, by all societies, all major cultures and all major religions. The state did not invent the institution of marriage and our government, which has the constitutional responsibility to regulate it, should not fundamentally redefine it.

Like many other academics, this professor also reinforces a point that has been raised numerous times in the House during the debate on Bill C-38, which is that same sex marriage is not essentially a rights issue and that not every rights claim is a valid claim. Need I remind the House that article 1 of the charter states:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

I would strongly suggest, especially in recognition of Justice La Forest's learned remarks, that marriage is by nature heterosexual and that limiting marriage to the union of one man and one woman is a reasonable limit. To emphasize this point, I refer to observations made in a letter to me:

It must be stressed that homosexuals need to be treated fairly and homophobia must be rejected vigorously. But a commitment to fairness and justice does not require the government or private citizens to mete out identical treatment. Not all differentiation is unwarranted or evil. Nor is every restriction of perceived rights a denial of justice. The crucial issue is whether any given restriction is reasonable...Good public policy must incorporate the making of informed and reasonable distinctions. Further, an insistence to call different entities by the same name is itself an inconsistency; it creates confusion and weakens credibility.

What is being said here, a sentiment I strongly agree with, is that the procreative or unique relationship that exists only between a man and a woman should be recognized and it should be recognized by allowing only this relationship to be defined by the word “marriage”. This is not to say that same sex couples should not enjoy the same benefits and protection under the law and be legally recognized couples within civil unions.

I will oppose this legislation and I will do so with the overwhelming support of the people of my riding of Crowfoot.

Unlike some of those opposite, I am speaking on behalf of my constituents. Based on the numerous town hall meetings I have hosted and on thousands of letters, emails, faxes and telephone calls, I am honestly and accurately reflecting the majority opinion within my constituency.

I ask how many on the opposite side can say the same. If the most recent poll, which shows that 66% of Canadians support the traditional definition of marriage, is any indication, then the answer is that not very many on the other side are representing their constituents.

I stand in the House to oppose Bill C-38, with the support of the leader of the Conservative Party. Unlike the Liberal leader, our leader believes in free votes. He believes that members of Parliament must vote according to the majority views in their riding. The Conservative Party believes in democracy.

The Liberal government has, and I quote from the February 3 National Post , “spent the last two months trying to convince Canadians that the Supreme Court said something it didn't: that the current definition of marriage in unconstitutional”.

Appealing to the vague emotional attachments many Canadians have to the charter, the Prime Minister and the justice minister have falsely declared that implementing gay marriage is necessary to protect the document and suggests that--

[Gurmant Grewal, Conservative, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Newton—North Delta to participate in the debate on Bill C-38, the civil marriage act.

In my eight years as a member of Parliament, there has never been an issue that has so inflamed and divided Canadians as the current debate over same sex marriage.

Unlike the Prime Minister and other members of his party, I have been consistent on this issue from day one. I oppose changing the definition of marriage and will vote against Bill C-38.

In 1999 I spoke in favour of reaffirming the traditional definition of marriage. In fact I led off the debate on the Reform Party motion which passed on a vote of 216 to 55. In 2003 I rose in this chamber to speak in support of another opposition motion seeking to preserve traditional marriage. By that time however, government members, including the current Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, who had voted to support the traditional definition of marriage had backed down from their commitment to marriage and traditional Canadian family values.

I have consulted widely with my constituents on the issue of marriage. I have had several well-attended town hall meetings on the issue and have conducted surveys. I have heard from more than 14,000 people through letters, e-mails, phone calls and meetings.

During the 2004 election, voters knew exactly where I stood on the same sex marriage issue.

I think most Canadians would agree that gays and lesbians should be free to pursue whatever type of relationship they wish. I see no problem in legally recognizing homosexual relationships, but this should not be done by changing marriage. In 1999 homosexual couples were given pension, property and other rights by changing 68 federal statutes through Bill C-23. If there are any pending rights, they should be allowed.

Marriage is something more than a public recognition of a couple's mutual love and commitment. It is intimately connected to procreation. The procreative potential of marriage is a basic element of what marriage is, just as swimming is a basic element of being a lifeguard, and playing music is a basic element of being a musician.

Marriage provides the structure which protects the procreation and nurturing of children in our society. That is why it is self-evident to most people in history that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. A homosexual couple does not meet the qualifications for the title of “married”.

Abraham Lincoln, when debating an individual, sought to resolve the issue with a question, “Sir, if you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?” “Five”, responded the gentleman. Lincoln corrected the man, “Four, sir. Just because you call a tail a leg doesn't make it so”.

The Liberals are committing the same folly. Just because one calls it a marriage does not make it so. It is an exercise in self-deceit, a denial of reality.

During my years in elected office I have been involved in a number of debates involving measures that deal with discrimination. I have supported legislation in this House and have spoken repeatedly to prohibit inappropriately unequal treatment of individuals based on race, religion, gender, disability and sexual orientation. I have been outspoken on the need to protect the human rights of all people, whether they be Falun Gong practitioners in China, Muslims in Gambia, South Asians living in Canada, or people in labour camps in Tibet. I have spoken with Chinese officials on their human rights record. I have been an advocate of the Human Rights Commission in B.C.

The Liberals are attempting to frame the issue of same sex marriage in the context of justice and human rights. In doing so they are insulting all those people in the world who suffer from human rights abuses on a daily basis.

How could the Liberals equate the denial of marriage to homosexuals to unlawful imprisonment, abuse, torture, denying voting rights or freedom of speech?

The Prime Minister is playing crass politics when he paints gay marriage as a human rights issue. He knows that Canadians will not accept same sex marriage on its own merits, so he is attempting to tie it to human rights and charter issues dear to the hearts of Canadians. While this may be politically opportunistic, manipulative and beneficial, morally it is dishonest.

In fact, no national or international court or human rights tribunal at the national or international level has ever ruled that same sex marriage is a human rights issue. After New Zealand's court of appeal ruled in 1997 that the opposite sex definition of marriage was not discriminatory and that it did not violate the country's bill of rights, the plaintiffs took their case to the UN Commission on Human Rights. The commission rejected the complaint in 2002.

The Prime Minister and his justice minister claim that the Supreme Court has forced their hand knowing full well it did nothing of the sort. The Supreme Court delivered its opinion on the non-binding marriage reference on December 9. The court refused to answer the fourth question, whether the Charter of Rights and Freedoms requires that marriage be redefined. While the Supreme Court has said that Parliament may redefine marriage, it has not said that it must redefine marriage to include same sex couples.

It is not unjust nor a limitation of anyone's legitimate rights and freedoms to insist that marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman. The definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others does not discriminate against homosexuals any more than someone getting the child tax credit discriminates against people who do not have kids. The Prime Minister and his colleagues knew this in 1999. To suggest now that opponents of gay marriage are un-Canadian bigots is disingenuous to the extreme.

This legislation has many Canadians in an uproar, including those in ethnic communities who have moral, cultural and religious beliefs that lead them to oppose same sex marriage. The Liberals argue that those people must abandon their deeply held beliefs so they can be considered Canadians. Linking same sex marriage to what it means to be a Canadian by Liberals is dishonest and shameful.

The Sikh community is struggling with the same sex issue thanks largely to the Liberal government. Our religion does not recognize same sex unions, yet the Canadian government wants us to give up something that is very traditional and very religious. Most Sikhs, like other immigrant groups, are supportive of the Charter of Rights because it helps to protect from discrimination. However, that does not mean they support every Liberal policy put forward in the name of the charter.

It strikes me as inevitable that one day soon churches, temples and synagogues in the country will be compelled to sanctify same sex unions. Soon the protections given to religious officials will be challenged. It will probably begin with the removal of tax exemptions for religious organizations that refuse to solemnize same sex marriages.

There are already divisions within protestant denominations over same sex marriage. The United Church of Canada sanctifies gay marriage, as do some Anglican churches in Canada.

It is a losing battle. Already the morality of homosexuality is a discussion controlled by political correctness. People who say anything in the negative are automatically labelled as homophobic and their arguments are dismissed without further consideration.

The government has assured Canadians that this legislation will have no bearing on the conduct of marriages in churches, synagogues, mosques, temples and gurdwaras, but the Supreme Court has already ruled that this issue falls beyond the jurisdiction of the federal government.

In conclusion, the Liberals have brought forward anti-family policies since 1993. They fail to realize that the family is the foundation of our society. The government should not dare to engineer society. Its flip-flop since 1999 indicates that the government has a hidden agenda.

Same sex partners should be permitted to legally register their relationships if they wish to do so, but as a civil union and not as a marriage. This is a practical solution that would satisfy the vast majority of Canadians. The same privileges and laws would apply to both types of formal relationships. This is a middle way on this issue.

Bill C-38 is bad for Canada. If passed it would undermine the family and strike against a cornerstone of our society. Therefore, I will oppose this bill.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Grey—Bruce—Owen Sound, ON]

My apologies, Madam Speaker.

There is no reason to discuss the use of the notwithstanding clause in the absence of a Supreme Court decision which indicates that the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has not done so.

I would like to thank my leader for allowing our party, including the members of the shadow cabinet, to have a free vote. On this side of the House a free vote means everyone, not just backbenchers, can vote the way their constituents want them to.

The Prime Minister has said that his backbenchers can vote their conscience, but cabinet ministers have to vote with the government. Does this mean that cabinet ministers do not have a conscience? I say to those cabinet ministers who do not vote according to the wishes of their constituents or who do not listen to their own conscience that they are a disgrace to the profession of a parliamentarian.

I ask the Prime Minister 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 be truly satisfied that the democratic process has prevailed.

While I am on the topic of the Liberal government, it is funny but not surprising that in 1999 the then justice minister said:

Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages.

What a difference six years makes. This is just another in a long line of Liberal deceptions.

I believe that the legislation the government has introduced will increase intolerance in our society. Examples of this have already occurred in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

In Manitoba 11 commissioners have been told that they will no longer be 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 the issue 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 last year telling them to either perform same sex marriages or to turn in their licences.

In Bill C-38 only clergy from religious institutions are recognized as requiring religious freedom protection. While I agree that churches should have the right to that choice, I also believe that this will be challenged in court and that clergy will be forced to perform same sex marriages.

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 could licence 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.

In closing, making my decision to stand up for traditional marriage goes back to my being raised with Christian values and to my dedication to family values. I am not ashamed to stand up for these values. I owe it to my country, to my wife of almost 30 years, to my children, and to my first granddaughter who is less than two weeks old.

I believe that marriage should continue to be what it has always been, between a man and a woman, and an institution which is by nature heterosexual and has as one of its main purposes the procreation and nurturing of children in the care of a mother and a father.

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

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Grey—Bruce—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to Bill C-38 on behalf of my constituents in Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. To say that this debate has garnered a lot of attention would be an understatement. It is contentious and divisive on both sides of the House, as well as within society and even within families.

My office has processed thousands of e-mails, letters, faxes and phone calls from across my riding. I commend my constituents for making their voices heard. More than 95% of the people I have heard from are united in their message and in their convictions. Traditional marriage must be preserved and protected. I will be speaking to that more specifically today.

While I am pleased that the decision has been placed in the hands of parliamentarians, many people across my riding have displayed their displeasure at this issue even coming forth at this time. I agree with my constituents when they continue to tell me that there are many more important issues we should be spending our time on such as health care and the high taxes Canadians are forced to pay.

Having said that, I do not believe a decision such as this should be made by a handful of hand-picked, biased, and backroom Supreme Court justices. We were elected by the people and we are here to represent them. This is not a debate about human rights. This is a debate about fundamental social values. In my opinion, there are two issues that have to be addressed in any bill on same sex. The rights of gays as determined by the courts must be adhered to including their right to unite in some form and traditional marriage defined as one man and one woman must be enshrined. That can be done very simply by allowing civil unions or similar and suitable terminology.

I have met with a number from the gay community and with parents who have gay children to discuss the issues surrounding the legislation. Most of the people I met with were in favour of my views and my stance. As I said, most told me that as long as their rights are protected as stated in the courts, and they are able to be with their partners, they agree that calling it a civil union is acceptable.

We have been forced to address the subject, but while I realize there is no perfect answer that will satisfy everyone, I believe we can offer a compromise that would win the support of the vast majority of Canadians who are looking for some middle ground. On the one hand, there are people who believe the equality of rights of gays and lesbians should rule over rights to religious free faith, religious expression or multicultural diversity. On the other hand, there are people who think that marriage is a fundamental institution, but that same sex couples can have equivalent rights and benefits, and should be protected.

My position is not unlike that of my colleagues and our leader in that it is based on a very solid foundation and time tested values. We believe that if the government presented the option of preserving marriage while recognizing equal rights of same sex couples through civil unions or other means, this is the option that the vast majority of Canadians would choose and would probably garner overwhelming support in Parliament. But then again, the government does not care about the majority of Canadians.

Marriage and the family based on marriage are the basic institutions of society. We should not change these kinds of fundamental institutions lightly or easily. I do not believe that the government has demonstrated that there are compelling reasons to alter this central social institution.

At least one of the major purposes of marriage historically has been to provide a stable environment for the procreation and raising of children. This does not mean that other kinds of relationships are not loving and valuable. Nor does it mean that heterosexual married couples who cannot or do not have children are any less married than anyone else. What it does mean is that marriage as a social institution has as one of its goals the nurturing of children in the care of a mother and a father.

If we change the definition of marriage to end the opposite sex requirement, we will be saying that this goal of marriage is no longer important. Those of us who support traditional marriage have been told that to amend the bill to reflect traditional definition of marriage would be a violation of human rights and an unconstitutional violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This is nothing more than an attempt by the government to shift the grounds of this debate. If the rights of gays and lesbians are adhered to as I stated earlier, this debate is not about human rights. It becomes simply a political, social policy decision, and should be treated as such.

There are those who would deceivingly suggest that Stephen Harper will use the notwithstanding clause. However, this again is also an irrelevant distraction to the debate because Mr. Harper has made it very clear that he will not--

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-38, a bill of extreme gravity, a bill which only a few years ago would have been difficult for most Canadians to fathom, and a bill which launches two major attacks on cherished Canadian traditions.

First, the bill is a direct attack on the basic institution of marriage, the heart of family. Second, it is completely clear that a secondary purpose of the legislation is to malign the religious freedoms of millions of Canadians.

How does a simple piece of legislation do this? To understand my reasoning, let me first briefly lay out my political philosophy, so that all who hear or read these words may fully understand the context of my statements.

I believe and emphatically advocate the form freedom system of government. This is the philosophy from which we derive the basic forms of western governance. Whether it is in the form of a constitutional monarchy, as in most of the Commonwealth, or in the form of a republic, as with our neighbours to the south, it is the basic principle that has historically forged our system of governance.

This is a system which allows for liberty without anarchy and freedom without chaos. This is a system which promotes the rule of law and yet has permitted representative and responsible government. It is a view which is antithetical to libertarianism, the Marxism of the right, and socialism, the Marxism of the left. It argues emphatically for inalienable rights, but only grants these rights with inalienable responsibility.

How does this relate to marriage? How do these grand principles that have served our society apply to the situation at hand? Specifically, the rights of marriage can and must be given only with the responsibilities of marriage. To give one element of the equation without the other only invites chaos for civil society. With responsibility and no rights, there is no motivation to enter into marriage, but for the rights of marriage to be granted without responsibility would deprive society of the benefits of the institution. It would be an open invitation to societal chaos. If society derives no benefit from marriage, why should society seek to promote and protect marriage? In effect, marriage would diminish to the point of irrelevance.

What are the fundamental responsibilities of marriage? What are the incumbent rights? The advocates for the legislation argue that marriage is the expression of intimacy for two adults. They say that the legislation is necessary because of the need for acceptance of homosexual unions, and the need for public expression of intimacy. However, acceptance cannot be achieved through coercive powers of the state. Acceptance can only be given through free will, and if the public expression of adult intimacy is the basis of marriage, then marriage has become so trivial a matter that no basis for it is necessary in law. For if marriage is already defined for the purpose of acceptance and dignity as an intimate, adult, publicly acknowledged relationship, we no longer have marriage in the historic sense.

The underlying presumptives of acceptance and intimacy form the basis for the “rights” argument promulgated by the advocates of the legislation. They lay the groundwork for the spurious and circular reasoning of the bill. The argument is made that we must redefine marriage to protect rights, but redefinition of marriage is argued as the basis of these rights. What we have is a perfect tautology, a talented bit of sophistry by the advocates of the legislation. There is no true logic to support the legislation. The basis of the legislation is pure subjective emotionalism.

So in the positive sense, what are the fundamental responsibilities of marriage? What new accountability is acquired by entering into the state of matrimony?

The first attendant responsibility of marriage is children. No amount of social engineering will change the biological fact that heterosexual marriage can and often does produce children. It is the exceptions which prove the rule.

In fact, one of the central purposes of marriage is to procreate future generations, in a safe environment. This is something that should be emphasized. It is a responsibility of marriage to be a child centered institution. It is through marriage that we connect children with their biological parents, provide for future generations, and build society in a responsible and organized fashion.

Repeated academic studies have noted that where marriage has been redefined in the way this legislation proposes, or even under the guise of civil unions, the entire society understands the message. Marriage is for adults only.

In our sound bite area we would say that marriage then becomes about “recreation, not procreation”, much to the detriment of all society. Procreation is of course not the only reason why society supports marriage. A detailed explanation of even this specific reason would more than use up my allotted time.

There are other reasons why marriage is a necessary good for society and possibly, if I have the ability to re-enter the debate on Bill C-38, I will be able to elaborate on these reasons. I will say however that many other members of the House have delivered many good and similar reasons why marriage must be retained.

I believe I have made my general point. All of these reasons are for the good of society and all relate to the uniquely heterosexual nature of marriage. There is however a secondary purpose to this legislation, a purpose which has been alluded to by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the government's deputy House leader. That purpose is to attack religious freedom in Canada.

The government has insisted that this is a matter of human rights, thus it is implying that everyone who does not agree with it is a bigot. This is a powerful weapon because it implies that the state will later on use its coercive force to crack down on the dissenters who do not share its view of rights. Why is the government taking such a drastic approach? It is for one basic reason: the faith communities of the country have been the government's most effective critics of the bill. If the government can intimidate the churches of the country into silence, it will.

While I deliberately chose not to use religious arguments in this debate, the theological arguments against same sex unions are powerful and legitimate arguments. We must not exclude religion from our public dialogue. Do we forget that this is what has motivated great societal change? It was the religious convictions of British parliamentarian William Wilberforce which drove him to lead the fight against slavery. What better argument against slavery is there than that all mankind is created in the image of God?

It was a theological impetus that caused the 14th century English priest, John Wycliffe, who long before Abraham Lincoln, wrote in his Bible, “This book shall make possible a government of the people, by the people, and for the people”. The arguments and explanations of William Blackstone, Henry de Bracton and other great legal commentaries on English common law reiterate this point.

In our modern era, the struggle against apartheid only further illustrates what I already stated. While I firmly disagreed with both their theology and politics, most of the leaders of the CCF also used their faith as a primary basis to call for political and social change.

I am not saying that theological arguments are innately moral or even superior to other lines of reasoning. My point is just this. By calling them illegitimate and implying that they are bigoted, the government is seeking to suppress one of the most important and positive forces in the history of western civilization. The government is attempting to suppress dissent, an action which no democratic government should engage in.

In summary, let me restate the two basic issues that I have raised in regard to the bill. It is clear that the rights of marriage should only be granted with the responsibilities of marriage. It is a simple point but one that the bill has seen fit to miss. It is clear that communities and arguments based on theology have contributed much good to Canadian society, yet the government is determined to target them.

There is great irony in the debate. The government calls for its actions to promote rights. Marriage however is really the voluntary revocation of rights. When two become as one they yield their rights to each other.

I for one will choose to stand for what is right for all Canadians. I will vote against the bill. I will vote with and for the people of Saskatoon—Humboldt. Here I stand; I can do no other.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to add my thoughts to this important debate. At the outset I would like to thank all the sources I may quote in these remarks, since time will not permit full attribution.

Marriage is the most fundamental social institution, which is why the outcome of this debate will have a profound impact on Canadians and on our country. Those who say that what the Liberal government is proposing will have no significant consequences are very much mistaken.

Until recently, most Canadians considered it unthinkable that any government would seriously propose that marriage would mean anything other than the union of one man and one women, yet the unthinkable is now happening, overriding the wishes of a majority of Canadians. That is why an amendment was moved by the hon. member for Calgary Southwest, the leader of the official opposition, and we are debating that amendment today.

I will be voting in support of this amendment for five reasons.

First, marriage by definition has always been between one man and one women. The fundamental meaning of the term marriage has always been understood to embody the concept of an opposite sex couple. The institution is universal across time, culture and religion. It is not merely the passing whim of a majority, but derives its legitimacy from biological reality, the way nature works.

This being so, same sex couples cannot be given the right to marriage without redefining the term. Changing its definition would inevitably change the effectiveness of marriage as the fundamental foundational underpinning of society that it has been over the ages. Redefining marriage would hollow out its meaning and cultural significance.

It is an historical fact that all civilizations throughout history have given marriage a special status because of its inherent relationship to procreation. Since same sex couples cannot procreate without going outside the relationship, calling same sex unions marriages implies that procreation is no longer regarded as an intrinsic aspect of marriage. There then is no longer a legitimate reason to limit the relationship to two unrelated persons as is currently the case.

Margaret Somerville, an ethicist in the faculties of law and medicine at McGill, writes:

Marriage, as it stands, is a societal institution that represents, symbolizes, and protects the inherently reproductive human relationship for the sake of children born of such relationships. Society needs such an institution and marriage is unique in this regard; there is no other alternative.

Second, the preservation of marriage is in the best interest of children. It is of paramount interest to the state whether children are born and grow up within or without the marital bounds because children that live in alternative family structures may incur multifarious disadvantages economically, socially, emotionally and physically. Even though many children raised in such alternative families do well, psychological and sociological studies indicate that children generally do best when raised by their biological parents in a stable marriage.

Children require more than love from their parents. Every child raised in a same sex home is raised in a home without either a father or a mother and therefore misses out on experiencing the inherent differences, unique sexual relationship and bonding of men and women that are at the heart of the institution of marriage as a cornerstone of a stable society. It is unacceptable that Bill C-38 intentionally causes this situation.

The evidence that children do best when raised by both their married biological parents provides a compelling interest for the state to continue recognizing marriage as the union of a man and a women. Marriage for life is still the family model that 88% of Canadian youths aspire to for their futures.

Third, this amendment is the only way to ensure protection of the charter right to freedom of religion, thought and belief. The Liberal government protests that no religious institution will be forced to perform same sex marriages but changing the definition of marriage would inevitably create a regime that will trump any protection of religious freedom.

This is because the meaning of marriage is not dependent upon what any religion says it is, but has been established for thousands of years in a universal cultural context much broader than that of any religious faith. In fact, a relationship is not a legal marriage unless it complies with civil law and, once it does, it cannot be invalidated for religious reasons.

In addition, religious belief is not recognized as a valid reason for disrespecting the law of the land. This being so, Bill C-38 would, unquestionably, have significant impact on those who refuse to recognize same sex partnerships as marriages for religious reasons.

In order to get around the valid concerns, some suggest there can be a difference between civil and religious marriages, but that is demonstrably false. In the long term, no religious community would be able to withstand the charge of violating human rights by refusing to solemnize same sex marriages.

Human rights tribunals and the courts will inevitably be filled with related grievances resulting in claims for damages and injunctions against discrimination. In fact, even though Bill C-38 has yet to be passed, cases are already multiplying against those who demonstrate disapproval of same sex marriages. Attempts to muzzle a respected religious leader like Bishop Henry are a case in point.

Should we believe government promises that its bill fully protects charter rights respecting freedom of religion? Not for a moment. The same government pledged only a short time ago that it had no intention of changing the definition of marriage. The record shows that the government's word cannot be trusted.

Fourth, the argument that marriage is a fundamental right is not valid. A fundamental characteristic of a human right is that it is something of which no one may be deprived without a grave affront to justice. Same sex marriage has not been recognized as a fundamental human right anywhere in the world, even though two countries have legislated it as a political decision.

With respect to equality before the law, marriage as it stands is not based on discrimination against homosexuals, but instead recognizes the inherent and natural differences between men and women, and confers on both the same benefits and restrictions in the context of marriage. Likewise, all Canadians are treated the same when it comes to marriage laws.

The question of whether same sex partnerships ought to be called marriage is clearly not one of human rights at all. No one ought to be fooled into thinking that it is. It is simply a public policy choice of the Liberal government to change and age old and proven societal institution. It is a policy choice imposed on a majority of Canadians who would prefer to retain the status of marriage as it has been throughout history.

While most Canadians support equality of economic rights for same sex partners, they would prefer that it be achieved through another form of union, not marriage.

The Prime Minister's claim that equality rights in the charter must be protected without exception is nonsensical. All government policies are forms of redistributive justice through which, for the common good, the state discriminates in favour of some people and some relationships and not others.

Same sex partnerships will always be different from heterosexual marriages because they do not contain the inherent connection to procreation. Calling them marriage does not give them equal significance but instead diminishes the importance of marriage as more than simply a love commitment between two people.

Fifth, one can hold a genuine respect for and acceptance of homosexual friends and family members while also supporting and preserving marriage in our society.

As others have emphasized, opposition to the bill is not because of any desire to prevent gay people from loving each other and living together in a committed relationship recognized by the state. The only question is whether this should be done by making marriage into something radically different.

Affirming various loving relationships is far different from deciding to refer to all of them as marriages. Fundamental characteristics necessarily define, differentiate and order our world, especially the institutions of our society. Those who support loving, committed relationships between homosexual couples can, at the same time, affirm that the institution of marriage does not exist just to promote individual interest.

[Dale Johnston, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, recently I had an opportunity to give a tour of this place to a group of visiting constituents. They marvelled at the architecture and the history in the surrounding area. What is truly amazing is how the historical character is so well integrated with new technology.

Over the years we have amended the Standings Orders to improve the efficiency of our procedures, while retaining the traditions that form the basis of our democracy. We have preserved and strengthened our foundation, while keeping pace with 21st century developments.

Marriage is also a time honoured institution that has stood the test of time and is one of the key foundations on which our society is built. For thousands of years marriage has been recognized as the union of one man and one woman.

Since Confederation, marriage in Canadian law has been defined as “the voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”. I believe this definition of marriage has served society well and should be retained.

Since I was first elected here in 1993, Parliament has passed legislation to provide benefits formerly available only to heterosexual married spouses, to common law partnerships and same sex couples. These initiatives were designed to bring equality into the system and we were assured time and again by the Liberal government that these changes would not affect the definition of marriage.

Canadian Alliance MPs were concerned our constituents wanted assurances, so in June 1999 we proposed a motion that said:

That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary, in light of public debate around recent court decisions, to state that marriage is and should remain a 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.

Liberal MP after Liberal MP, cabinet minister after cabinet minister, including the former prime minister Jean Chrétien and the current Prime Minister, the former justice minister and current Deputy Prime Minister, voted to reaffirm the traditional definition of marriage.

Here is what the Deputy Prime Minister said on that day:

Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages.

She also went on to say:

I support the motion for maintaining the clear legal definition of marriage in Canada as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

She also said:

I fundamentally do not believe that it is necessary to change the definition of marriage in order to accommodate the equality issues around same sex partners which now face us as Canadians.

With the full support of the current Prime Minister and key players on the government frontbench, I am pleased to say that the motion passed 215 to 55, and there I thought the issue would end.

In September 2003, however, we proposed a motion to reaffirm that marriage was and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. This time the Liberals did an about face and the Prime Minister and his deputy voted against reaffirming the traditional definition of marriage.

It appears that when the Prime Minister and his Deputy Prime Minister are not dithering, that they are flip-flopping. If Canadians cannot trust the Prime Minister's word on this, I submit that they have every right to be unable to trust him on anything.

Conservatives believe that the vast majority of Canadians believe that marriage is a fundamental distinct institution, but that same sex couples can have equivalent rights or benefits. The leader of the official opposition has tabled reasonable and thoughtful amendments to the bill.

We believe that the law should continue to recognize the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. At the same time, we would propose that other forms of union, however structured, by appropriate provincial legislation, whether called registered partnerships, domestic partnerships, civil unions or whatever, should be entitled to the same legal rights, privileges and obligations as marriage.

Where there are issues affecting rights and benefits within the federal domain, our party would ensure that for all federal purposes these Canadians living in other forms of unions would be recognized as having equal rights and benefits under federal law as well.

We believe that is what most Canadians want.

Recent public opinion polls, and apparently even Liberal polls, show that nationally two out of every three Canadians is opposed to changing the definition of marriage.

The issue of same sex marriage has divided many Canadians but not in my constituency where there is overwhelming support for the traditional definition of marriage. The following is what some of them have had to say in the hundreds of letters that I have received on this subject.

One resident from the town of Lacombe, who was concerned that “our nation was being steered in the wrong direction”, said:

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. This definition was not created by the courts or by Parliament. The union of a man and woman has served as the foundation of societies throughout time.

From Wetaskiwin, another constituent writes:

Same sex marriage has been represented by the government and the media as a human rights issue. It is not a matter of rights; it is a matter of definition and the important purposes marriage serves in society. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

A husband and wife from Gwynne wrote:

Marriage between a man and a woman is a unique relationship that simply cannot be replicated by any other relationship.

In an open letter to the Prime Minister, a Winfield man wrote:

Like those in the trenches of old, we do not find it becomes us to build a nation by appealing to our rights. We are instead instructed by the common good. We confess to being “born” with tendencies and primal urges that would put individual above order. But it is character not legislation that helps us rise above them.

This legislation is not just the assertion of a new right. It is potentially the reduction of an older one.

It is troubling that this Liberal bill provides little in the way of assurances that religious freedoms will be protected if the legal definition of marriage is changed.

The Liberals keep talking about how they are protecting religious freedoms but the reality is that the solemnization of marriage is a provincial responsibility, so Bill C-38 does not do what they say it will do. What they do not want Canadians to know, apparently, is that the government cannot adequately protect religious freedoms in federal legislation.

There is only one clause in the bill that states that religious officials will not be forced to solemnize same sex marriages. The problem is that the Supreme Court has already ruled that this clause is beyond the federal government's authority because provinces are responsible for performing marriage ceremonies. It has not provided any specific statutory protection of religious freedoms in the areas of its own jurisdiction.

Our party believes that religious institutions need to be explicitly protected in such areas as charitable tax status. In addition, public officials who, for religious reasons, feel they cannot perform same sex marriages must also be explicitly protected from reprisal if they refuse to perform such marriages.

I recently came across a leaflet prepared by the Catholic Organization for Life and the Family. I think it has pretty much been summed up in their leaflet, which states:

As an institution, marriage has enormous significance, and has existed for thousands of years. The word we use for this institution--marriage--is full of history, meaning and symbolism, and should be kept for this unique reality.

I could not agree more, which is why I have always been a strong supporter of the traditional definition of marriage. I will continue to vote against any legislation to change it, including Bill C-38 as it now stands.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is with great anticipation that I have awaited this opportunity to speak to Bill C-38. Like members on all sides of the House, I know my constituents in Prince George—Peace River not only expect, they deserve to have their member of Parliament stand in this chamber and clearly state not only my position but their position on the definition of marriage.

Most of my constituents, as well as many Canadians, are already aware that I do not support Bill C-38. I do support the traditional definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I vehemently oppose the discrimination of same sex couples and homosexual Canadians. I am disappointed by the misleading assertion made by the government that opposition to same sex marriage equates to discrimination. It does not.

Of utmost importance to this debate is that both sides of the issue maintain respectful and responsible arguments. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has shown a preference to dismiss opposing views in the debate by dismissing those who disagree with it as proponents of discrimination. Sadly, that means millions of Canadians who oppose this legislation for legitimate reasons are being ignored by their federal government.

We also have a responsibility to maintain accurate arguments throughout the debate. Anything less is a disservice to Canadians. Let me clarify one of the most significant inaccuracies in the government's justification for extending the definition of marriage to include same sex couples. It is the springboard of the Liberal government's argument for introducing the legislation, which has been, “the Supreme Court made us do it”.

The Supreme Court of Canada did not rule against maintaining the traditional definition of marriage. The Supreme Court told Canada's Parliament that deciding whether to include same sex couples under marriage legislation was our job as the people's democratic representatives. In fact, the Supreme Court refused to even rule on whether the traditional definition of marriage was a violation of the equality provision under the charter of rights and freedoms.

We in this Parliament were told in no uncertain terms that we had to do the job we were elected to do, and make a decision on this important social policy matter. If it is the decision of the Liberal government to turn away from the traditional definition of marriage, it should come clean and stop hiding behind the Supreme Court.

The Conservative Party of Canada and our leader have made it clear that same sex relationships should be entitled to the same legal rights, privileges and benefits as marriage. However, marriage for many reasons, some of which I will outline, should be reserved solely as the institution between a man and a woman. I support other legal means for recognizing relationships, whether they include heterosexual or homosexual couples or whether they are called civil unions or partnerships. What is important is that those couples, that all couples, are provided full recognition and possess equivalent rights and privileges under the law.

By choosing the path advocated by the Conservative Party, the government could ensure the rights of its citizens while recognizing the fundamental importance of traditional marriage to our society. If we proceed as a nation down the path that the federal Liberal government has chosen, the consequences are unforeseen and far-reaching. We do not know what erasing the traditional definition of marriage will mean for our society 50 or 100 years from now. Yet how do we correct the damage after the ideal of a loving mother and father raising their children has been erased from our social psyche?

I believe it should remain the ideal. This would not result in discrimination against other relationships, including same sex couples. This does not mean marriages without children, or common law relationships or civil unions are any less deserving of our due respect and appreciation. It means we must recognize that society requires ideals or standards by which to set our ethical compass. Without these ideals, we have no guidelines to mark our way. To my mind, and in the minds of millions of other Canadians, marriage between a man and a woman with the ultimate goal of procreation is the ideal relationship.

So much of the legislation and issues that I have advocated in my eleven and a half years as a member of Parliament have boiled down to one main theme: children and doing what is in their best interest. Bill C-38 is no different for me. In my view, marriage is about children.

McGill University medical and legal ethicist Margaret Somerville has raised the excellent question, “Should marriage be primarily a child-centred institution or an adult-centred one?”

Is it about what kids need and deserve or is it about what two adults want? I believe we must reserve this one institution, the institution of marriage, as being about the best interests of a chid.

The ideal is that whenever possible children have a right to be raised by both a mother and a father, preferably their own biological parents. Fortunately, we have wonderful alternatives when this is not possible, particularly adoption which provides a valuable contribution to our society in providing a loving home to children who would otherwise be left without one.

Divorce is a fact of life in our society and it is something that many parents and children continue to struggle through. There are many types of families in the 21st century and we must do everything we can to protect and nurture the children within them. However, to actually change the definition of marriage to include same sex couples and to legitimize same sex marriage as a perfectly acceptable option means abolishing the norm or the ideal of a child being raised by their biological mother and father.

I would again like to refer to Dr. Somerville's arguments as she successfully explains how marriage and civil unions or partnerships can co-exist as two distinct institutions without being discriminatory. She states:

--there's a difference between separate-but-equal and different-but-equal. Separate-but-equal means that two entities are inherently the same, but are treated as separate. That's discrimination...Different-but-equal means that two entities are not inherently the same, but are treated equally. That's the antithesis of discrimination.

Same sex relationships and traditional marriage are not the same. The first is based upon individuals' commitment to each other and public recognition of that commitment. In other words, what adults want. The second is based upon the societal ideal of a man and a woman and procreation. It is about children.

I firmly believe we should recognize same sex relationships and legally protect them and any children involved, but that does not require expanding the definition of marriage to include same sex couples.

I have already stated on several occasions that my constituents have indicated overwhelmingly to me that they oppose Bill C-38 and have demanded that the traditional definition of marriage be maintained. Throughout this debate I have sought to gauge their views and opinions on this very important social issue through informal surveys and mailouts in my riding. I aggressively requested feedback and input on this matter. I did not have to try too hard.

In the past several months I have received literally thousands of letters, e-mails, faxes and phone calls from my constituents asking me to oppose any legislation that would alter the traditional definition of marriage. Those letters as well as my own questionnaires made it evident where most of my constituents stood. However, I felt it was my responsibility to seek all the facts, leaving no room for doubt on how my constituents wished me to vote on this important legislation. Therefore, two weeks ago, I commissioned a scientific poll in my riding, conducted by a reputable independent polling firm. The poll surveyed 500 residents of Prince George--Peace River.

When asked the question if they supported or opposed allowing Canadians to marry people of the same sex, 48% of the respondents said they were opposed to same sex marriage, 36% said they supported it and 16% were either undecided or had no opinion.

When asked if they supported or opposed allowing Canadians to enter into a civil union with people of the same sex if the relationship was not called “a marriage”, 45% of those polled said they would support that, 38% said they were opposed and 18% offered no opinion.

When asked if they supported or opposed allowing same sex couples the equivalent rights and benefits as heterosexual couples, 45% said they supported it, 41% said they were opposed and 14% were undecided.

I believe it is no small coincidence that the response to those three questions mirrors the amendments put forward by the leader of the official opposition, the amendments which we will soon be called upon to vote on, the amendments which I believe not only reflect the opinion of the majority of my constituents in Prince George--Peace River but the views of the majority of Canadians as well. That is why I will support the amendments, and I will remain opposed to Bill C-38.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to stand in the House today to support Bill C-38, the marriage for civil purposes act.

There is no doubt that if we were to ask 100 Canadians for their opinion on the definition of marriage we would be responded to with a wide variety of opinions and rationale. I appreciate the fact that the issue of same sex unions evokes strong emotions from both those who agree with it and those who disagree, but I support the need for respect to be exercised by all parties on both sides of the issue.

The marriage for civil purposes act proposes to extend the right to marry for civil purposes to same sex couples while ensuring that religious freedoms are protected. Today, same sex marriage is legal in many parts of Canada, including my home province of Ontario. Thousands of same sex couples have married. The legislation tabled by the federal government will simply extend this right to all Canadians.

The proposed legislation is consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling on same sex marriage. It is important to remember that civil marriage of same sex couples is about civil marriage, not religious marriage.

The Supreme Court was very clear that religious freedom is already constitutionally protected under the charter. The court went on to state that religious officials cannot be compelled to perform same sex marriages that are contrary to their belief system. To do so would be a violation of the charter.

No church, synagogue, mosque or temple can be forced to perform a marriage that goes against its religious beliefs.

The government's bill affirms its commitment to upholding religious freedom by including a clause that reflects the freedom of conscience and religion under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The bottom line is that religious freedoms for all Canadians are protected under the charter and the government has reaffirmed that protection in this piece of legislation.

Extending the right of civil marriage for same sex couples is an affirmation of Canada's commitment to protecting minority rights and guaranteeing equity for all.

As a member of Parliament, I am proud to respect and proud to defend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The charter is distinctly Canadian, embodying our values of equality, freedom and respect.

I am also well aware that this is a difficult issue for many, for either personal or religious reasons. I value my own faith and I look to my faith for guidance on many issues. As a legislator, I determine my decisions on policy after a great deal of thought and much reflection.

Recently I had the opportunity in the span of about 10 days to host a meeting on the Hill with Richard Fee, the moderator of my own church, the Presbyterian Church of Canada. While his opinion differed from mine on supporting the legislation, he too called for respectful debate around this issue.

Later on I had the opportunity to attend a meeting with the Right Reverend Dr. Peter Short, who is the moderator of the United Church of Canada. In a letter of invitation to the meeting that I attended, Peter Short wrote:

I write to you in the hope that you will resist the assumption that anyone who speaks from Christian faith, tradition and values must be against equal marriage. Some are, some aren't. This is true within the United Church, just as it is true within Canadian society as a whole.

He went on to say:

I want to put before you now a Christian perspective on faith, tradition and values....I am aware of your responsibilities toward a multicultural and multi-faith society, so what follows is not intended to be normative for all...In the end, faith, tradition, and values do not decide for us. They equip us to take up the responsible and difficult task of deciding for ourselves. This deciding is itself is an act of faith.

He then went on to say that he hopes there will be a day when all God's children are accepted equally.

The development of public policy must reflect the priorities of a wide variety of Canadians. I believe the legislation we are discussing today succeeds in protecting both the rights of minorities and the rights of religious institutions.

We are talking about expanding one of the central and long-standing institutions of our society. Throughout Canada's history we find examples that demonstrate our ability to successfully address fundamental societal issues with respect to the rights of Canadians to equality.

For example, in 1929 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on the Persons case that women were persons for the purposes of Senate appointments. In another example, in 1992 in the Schachter case, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that fathers had a right to paternity leave under the Employment Insurance Act to stay home and give care to their children.

This is an issue of equal rights for Canadians, for all Canadians, and we need a national solution. The Government of Canada agrees with the courts that denying legal recognition for same sex unions does not meet the equality provisions of the charter.

As a member of Parliament, I have seen how diversity, inclusion and equality make us stronger as a nation. It is with this in mind that I am proud to support the federal government's legislation to extend the right to marry for civil purposes to same sex couples.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the issue at stake, there are several reasons why I, as the member of Parliament for Haldimand—Norfolk, will be voting against extending marriage to same sex couples.

First, I believe that the traditional definition of marriage is important to maintain the very clear distinction between opposite sex conjugal relationships and same sex ones. The traditional definition of marriage affirms the distinct nature of heterosexual bonding and its potential to sustain life and assure the continued existence of society as we know it.

To suggest that heterosexual marriage and same sex marriage are the same, runs roughshod over any distinction between homosexual and heterosexual bonding in an effort to create a one shoe fits all sizes category. It demolishes any meaningful recognition of the difference between same sex relationships and opposite sex relationships.

Different relationships have different words to describe them. Why? Because each is very distinctive. Parental relationships are distinctive from sibling relationships. Platonic relationships are distinctive from romantic relationships. Social relationships are distinctive from professional relationships. That is why we have different words to describe different distinctive relationships. That is another reason why same sex relationships should have a different definition from heterosexual relationships.

In light of the reasons I have mentioned, I believe our leader has taken not only a reasonable compromise position, but the only true middle ground position in this debate. This position opts to retain the traditional definition of marriage, while affirming legal recognition for same sex partnerships with equivalent rights and benefits. It is my view that this position is in accord with the views of the vast majority of Canadians.

The Conservative Party intends to amend the government's legislation to present this reasonable compromise position to preserve the traditional definition, while maintaining legal rights and privileges for same sex partnerships and explicitly protecting religious freedoms.

Protecting religious freedom is something with which the government likes to pretend it is concerned. It promises that freedom of religion will be protected in Bill C-38. These promises are cold comfort though and ring completely hollow to those concerned with protecting the rights of religious individuals and organizations. Why? Because these promises come from the same individuals who promised not only to defend and uphold the traditional definition of marriage, but to take all necessary means to ensure that the traditional definition was upheld.

How can religious officials and organizations believe that the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister will protect religious freedoms when they are acting contrary to their own votes of just a few years ago? Both promised to defend the traditional definition of marriage. They now are doing the exact opposite. I guess this is just another case of Liberal promise made, promise broken.

Not only is the Liberal government turning its back on defending the traditional definition of marriage, but it is going one step further. It is usurping the rights of religious individuals and organizations by failing to do what it said it would; that is protecting the rights and freedoms of religious organizations and individuals. This is not just my personal opinion, it is the opinion of the highest court in the land.

In its advisory opinion, the Supreme Court recently ruled that the clause of a draft bill that was designed to protect religious freedom was unconstitutional. This clause, as drafted in the proposed legislation, deals with the solemnization of marriage which falls under provincial jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Liberal government has provided no specific statutory protection of religious freedoms in areas of its own jurisdiction. As a result, Bill C-38 offers no protection to public officials who for religious reasons refuse to fulfil a state imposed job requirement that might conflict with their personal conscience or religious beliefs.

For example, in B.C., Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland marriage commissioners have already lost their jobs for standing up for their religious beliefs. This lack of protection for both religious and civic officials, individuals and organizations is reason enough to defeat this legislation.

Our leader has said that he intends to legislate the traditional definition of marriage while protecting the equal rights, benefits and privileges of same sex couples and giving concrete assurances of religious freedom. That is his commitment now and it will remain his commitment when he becomes Prime Minister.

In closing, I believe that the traditional definition of marriage must remain as it has always been, that is, between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. The majority of Canadians firmly believe in equal rights, but they also want to see the traditional definition of marriage protected, and that is how I will be voting.

Ukrainian Canadian Restitution Act

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Madam Speaker, as a country, Canada represents a coming together of many peoples. As such, we have learned over time to respect and mutually accept each other. It is this fact that separates us from others and puts Canada on the world stage.

We have established a legal foundation, enshrined in our Constitution, that is aimed at ensuring Canadians are protected from racism and discrimination. We will continue, as a government, to work on these issues so that all Canadians have the opportunity to participate to their fullest potential. In fact, that is what this House has been debating all week.

At the same time, we are working to strengthen the bonds of shared citizenship to ensure the continuance of the strong and cohesive Canadian society that we have today.

The Government of Canada recognizes there have been dark moments in the history of this country. We have recognized that presenting a complete history is important in understanding who we are as Canadians, even if the history we have to tell includes times when we have strayed from our shared commitment to human justice.

The internment of Ukrainian Canadians and other Europeans during the first world war is one of those chapters in Canadian history that we as a people, as Canadians, are not proud of, even though the actions of the government of that day were legal at that time.

Our commitment as a government is to strengthen the fabric of Canada's multicultural society. We are committed to learning from the past. We are committed to acknowledging and commemorating the significant contributions to Canada made by our rich and various ethnoracial and ethnocultural groups, including of course Ukrainians.

The Department of Canadian Heritage and the cultural agencies in the Canadian Heritage portfolio have made considerable efforts to ensure that the story of Ukrainians in Canada is known to all Canadians.

For example, Parks Canada, as one of the members opposite mentioned, while working under the heritage portfolio, worked closely with national and local Ukrainian Canadian groups to develop interpretive exhibits at Banff National Park, an exhibit I have seen, and at Yoho National Park and Mount Revelstoke National Park. The exhibits help visitors and all Canadians understand the experiences, hardships and contributions of Ukrainian internees.

The Department of Canadian Heritage is providing funding to Ukrainian Canadian organizations to assist in documenting the experiences of Ukrainian internees and to underline the contribution of the Ukrainian community to our country.

Since the 1890s, when waves of Ukrainians helped to settle this vast land, Ukrainians have played an important role in Canada. An incredible number of Canadians of Ukrainian heritage have made extraordinary contributions to Canada, contributions of which all Canadians are very proud.

Wayne Gretzky, of course, is a star and international sports hero. Ed Werenich is a world champion in curling.

In the cultural sphere, all of us have adored artist William Kurelek's paintings and the work of violinist Steven Staryk.

In public life, Ramon Hnatyshyn and Roy Romanow have made us all proud.

Canada's first woman in space is Roberta Bondar. I was saying to one of my colleagues that I did not know she was of Ukrainian heritage.

To think of Ukrainian Canadians is also to recall Canada's war hero, Peter Dmytruk, who died for all of us on the battlefields of France in World War II.

As Canadians, we are proud to live in a country that recognizes the importance of diversity.

In the October 2004 Speech from the Throne, the government pledged to pursue its objectives, “in a manner that recognizes Canada's diversity as a source of strength and innovation”. We pledged “to be a steadfast advocate of inclusion” and “to demand equality of opportunity so that prosperity can be shared by all Canadians”.

In line with these commitments, the government is now advancing a number of multicultural and anti-racism initiatives designed to cultivate an even more equitable and inclusive society. Bills like Bill C-38.

In our recent budget, we provided $5 million per year to the multiculturalism program to enhance its contributions to equality for all.

A comprehensive and effective multiculturalism program is important in our increasingly diverse country where by the year 2016 the proportion of visible minorities is expected to reach 20%.

In the October 2004 Speech from the Throne, the government said that it would “strengthen Canada's ability to combat racism, hate speech and hate crimes”.

We will achieve that plan by investing $56 million over the next fives years to implement Canada's action plan against racism. Canada's action plan, which the government announced on March 21, the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, a day that all of us celebrated, will reinforce the government's ongoing commitment to eliminating racist behaviours and attitudes. It will strengthen partnerships between the Government of Canada and community organizations to combat racism and will advance our international and domestic objectives.

A society looking to its future cannot do so without acknowledging troubling events from Canada's past. Budget 2005 provided $25 million over the next three years for commemorative and educational initiatives to highlight the contributions that Ukrainians and other ethnocultural groups have made to our Canadian society and to help build a better understanding among all Canadians of the strength of Canadian diversity.

With this funding the government is responding to demands from the community in a way that respects both the concerns of the communities and the government's 1994 policy on this issue.

Bill C-331 looks to the past for a solution. As a government we are looking to the future for all Canadians.

Civil Marriage Act

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, after serving my constituents for eight years and rising in this distinguished place literally hundreds of times on many issues, I consider the issue we are dealing with today, Bill C-38, to be extremely important, if not the most important issue I have dealt with. It is also the issue, in my experience, that has created the highest number of responses from my constituents and from Canadians right across the country. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to present my comments and my thoughts.

The legislation the Prime Minister and the Liberal minority government have brought forward to change the traditional definition of marriage from the union of one man and one woman to two persons, in my mind, if passed without amendment will fundamentally change one of the basic pillars of our society, that being the traditional family.

The very act of tabling this legislation has caused problems, both within families and within communities. I want to relate a couple of incidents that I have been part of that will help expand on why I say that this proposed legislation is creating these problems, and outline what I and many others feel is a better way to proceed.

I have made it clear during my tenure as the member of Parliament for Lethbridge that I support the traditional definition of marriage as being the union of a man and a woman. However, I also believe people who choose a different path have rights as well. Problems begin to rise when interests at opposite ends of the issue become polarized and are unable to find middle ground.

The way the government is determined to proceed only exacerbates the situation because of its unwillingness to compromise. I believe the majority of Canadians prefer a moderate solution and not the hard line and inflexible position the Liberals are pushing.

The first personal experience I want to relate occurred about a year ago, shortly after I had put out a householder in my riding with comments outlining my support for traditional families and marriage. This release prompted a number of gay couples and individuals to come to my office to discuss my position and to relay concerns they had regarding some of my comments.

A number of these people were personal friends I have known for many years and have active roles in the community. Others I met for the first time. They explained to me the issues they had with some of my comments and wanted me to know they could be used in a harmful way. I assured them that causing anyone harm was not my intention.

They also wanted to inform me that they had meaningful relationships. They knew I would not change my stance on the definition of marriage, but felt obligated to give me their views. We were able to have a meaningful, frank, and at the same time respectful dialogue. Hopefully, we all went away with a better understanding of each other's views. I know I did.

The other incident I would like to refer to took place in my home at our kitchen table. In southern Alberta, as I am sure it is in most areas of Canada, many important discussions are held around the kitchen table.

A male friend of mine whom I have known most of my life, a successful businessman, a strong supporter of community activities, a husband, a father, grandfather, and devout Christian, phoned to say he would like to stop in at our home with some thoughts on how to stop the Liberals from changing the traditional definition of marriage. He came over and we discussed possible scenarios that could be used to improve the legislation or defeat it.

During his comments, he paused for a moment, a tear came to his eye, and he started to relate how his family was being tormented by this issue. One of his children had decided to support same sex marriage and he was struggling to understand why. He broke down and was unable to continue. He could not understand why the Prime Minister and the Liberal government were doing this to his family.

He, along with most Canadians, feels very strongly that the definition of marriage should be the union of one man and one woman, but he holds no animosity toward same sex couples. However, he does not understand why the Liberals are so intent on pursuing this issue when there are so many other important issues that need Parliament's attention. He could not understand why a compromise could not be reached that would satisfy the majority of Canadians.

These are just two examples of divergent beliefs that exist side by side in Canada that I, along with every member in the House I would think, have been exposed to over the past number of months.

For all the people I have heard from who are polarized on this issue, and for all those Canadians who are seeking a moderate solution, I am asking members of Parliament to please consider the amendments brought forward by the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. If we must go down this road, then let us do it with a reasonable compromise and in a manner that places no one at a disadvantage.

Parliament is fully within its right to pass such amendments because the Supreme Court not only declined to answer on the constitutionality of traditional marriage but made it clear that it was up to Parliament to decide on this important matter.

The justice minister and Prime Minister are misleading Canadians when they promise to protect religious freedoms, knowing full well that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the provisions in the draft legislation pertaining to the right of religious officials to refuse to perform marriage is outside the jurisdiction of the federal Parliament, even so far as federal common law and federal statutes are concerned.

The federal justice minister has had several months to draft amendments to protect religious freedoms in relation to income tax and charitable status. He has chosen not to do this. There are no such protections in this bill. This is one area where the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada has indicated our plan to move such amendments if this legislation survives second reading.

Importantly as well, the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada is allowing a free vote for our entire caucus, something the so-called democratic deficit fighter, the Prime Minister, is not allowing in the Liberal Party, nor are the leaders of the Bloc or the NDP for that matter.

The Leader of the Opposition has taken a reasonable, moderate approach to this issue that is in accord with the views of the vast majority of Canadians. The option we present to retain the traditional definition of marriage as well as recognize that same sex partnerships have equivalent rights and benefits represents the middle ground the majority of Canadians occupy. As I indicated, we intend to amend the government's legislation to present this reasonable position to preserve the traditional definition while maintaining legal rights and privileges for same sex partnerships and to protect religious freedom.

The use of the notwithstanding clause, which is mentioned often in the speeches from across the way, is not an issue in this debate and is simply not necessary. The only legal opinion that is relevant here is that of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the traditional definition of marriage. It has handed the issue back to Parliament to legislate. The court has never ruled on legislation of the type the Conservative Party of Canada is proposing, which would ensure equal rights and privileges for same sex partnerships while affirming the traditional definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman.

I am confident that ensuring equal rights is the way, along with legislation to define the traditional definition of marriage, something that we do not presently have, that represents a reasonable compromise, a firm expression of Parliament's will, a democratic will that the courts would respect. That is the moderate position that we represent and it is where most Canadians' beliefs are on the issue. They firmly believe in equal rights, but they also want to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.

As was pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition when he led off the debate for the Conservative Party of Canada on this bill, the definition of marriage is a question of social policy as opposed to a rights issue, and it is therefore for Parliament to decide. Respecting the traditional definition of marriage is not an infringement on anyone's rights. If we put into legislation the traditional definition along with equal rights and benefits for same sex partners, we will have the reasonable compromise that reflects the broad consensus of Canadians.

It is not up to the Prime Minister to decide if same sex marriage is a fundamental right. The Supreme Court refused to answer the question on whether the traditional definition of marriage is constitutional. In doing so, the court indicated that this was a matter for Parliament, the elected representatives of the people, to decide.

In closing, let me ask the members of the House to do what is right and to reach the reasonable compromise by accepting the amendments that will allow the retention of the definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman, while extending to other civil unions established under the laws of a province the same rights, benefits and obligations as married persons.

Let us do the reasonable thing. Let us reach the position that the vast majority of Canadians are seeking, so families that are being torn apart can once again be whole, and those who are living in traditional marriages or civil unions can live in peace.

If I could get off topic just for a second, I would like to mention a few of the members of the House who have not been with us in the last little while: the member for Surrey North, the member for Westlock--St. Paul, the member for Okanagan-Shuswap, and of course our own Sergeant-at-Arms. These four people are struggling with issues of their own and I would just like to let them know that we are thinking of them.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells to participate in the debate on Bill C-38, the civil marriage act.

First, allow me to say that I am proud to be a member of a party that allows a member to vote how his or her conscience dictates, not how his or her party leader or whip orders him or her to vote. My party will have a free vote on this very important bill.

I think it is unacceptable in a parliamentary democracy for a Prime Minister to force members of his cabinet to vote for a measure they might not approve of. All MPs must be allowed to vote according to the dictates of their own conscience or the wishes of their constituents on this very important issue. I call on the right hon. gentleman to remove the whip, unmuzzle his cabinet members and allow them the dignity of voting as they believe.

Personally, I will vote against Bill C-38, the so-called same sex marriage bill. The Prime Minister has had an eleventh hour conversion to the cause of same sex marriage. Many Canadians will remember that in 1999 the government supported a Reform Party motion that stated marriage would remain the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. That motion easily passed by a vote of 216 to 55. The overwhelming majority of Liberal MPs, including Jean Chrétien and the current Prime Minister, voted in favour. So did today's Deputy Prime Minister, who assured Canadians that the government had no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriage. How quickly they forget their promises.

Instead of taking a stand for or against same sex marriage from the start and dealing with it in Parliament, where it should have been decided after a broad public debate, the Liberals have ducked at every turn and thus handed the issue by default back to the courts. That of course is the Liberal way.

The courts have provided a convenient refuge for Liberals to avoid controversial issues. They delay and delay considering issues until the courts have resolved them. The Liberals then turn around and blame judges for forcing them to pass controversial legislative changes.

In a genuine democracy, the courts do not legislate. Enacting laws is a legislative function that is properly exercised only by elected representatives of the people.

The Liberals claim the courts have left them with no other choice than to introduce same sex marriage legislation. This is nonsense. On this issue the Supreme Court refused to be used as a political tool and to play the Liberal game. It left the decision of whether to legalize gay marriage up to Parliament. The court validated what the Conservative Party has been saying all along. It is Parliament that should be making the decisions on such fundamental matters of social policy.

Extending legal recognition to same sex marriage has absolutely nothing to do with the Charter of Rights. It has everything to do with debasing or diluting the traditional values of a sacred religious sacrament or covenant.

The debate is about family values, religious institutions, family units and procreation. Marriage is a voluntary union between one man and one woman. It has as its foundation, love, mutual satisfaction and procreation. The union of one man and one woman is mankind's most enduring institution.

I will not stand in the way of two adults of the same sex who choose to live together as partners. I do vigorously oppose calling this union a marriage. It is not a marriage. It is a union, legal or otherwise, of two consenting adults, no more, no less.

The Liberal government has decided to make it a priority to change the traditional definition of marriage. To attempt to alter the meaning of marriage is to undermine the family, which is already under great pressure in our society.

Marriage has four basic prohibitions which are pretty much universal and timeless. We can only marry one person at a time, only someone of the opposite sex, never someone beneath a certain age, and not a close blood relative. These prohibitions have been grounded in morality and law. We need this stabilization in an ever changing world, but the Liberals want to take it away from us.

The government wants Canadians to believe that there are two different types of marriages, civil marriage and religious marriage. They are being intellectually dishonest. Marriage is marriage, regardless of the adjective one places in front of it. Whether someone gets married by a priest or by a judge, it does not change what we mean by marriage.

The government is now trying to change marriage for everyone. No longer will it symbolize the basic procreative relationship between one man and one woman. It will now merely be the recognition of a loving and committed relationship between two people. This begs the question, why not just keep marriage the same as it has always been and create another institution for relationships that have nothing to do with procreation?

This would be the Canadian way, the middle road between two extremes. It is also a solution that has been embraced by other countries in the world, including by France's socialist government.

The Conservative Party believes that an alternative to marriage is an appropriate solution. Civil unions would allow the state to recognize relationships between two partners, be they homosexual or heterosexual, while at the same time maintaining marriage as it has been for hundreds of years the world over. This is also a solution that is agreeable to a majority of Canadians.

I hold little faith in Liberal claims that this legislation will in no way affect religious freedoms, and not just because the Supreme Court has already said the federal government has no control over the matter. It is, after all, the same government that five years ago promised to uphold traditional marriage. The government is obviously swayed by the flavour of the month, putting little stock in traditional beliefs and values.

The Liberals have shown little interest in protecting religious rights. In 2003 they refused to support amendments to hate crime legislation designed to protect religious expression. Last spring the Liberals tested how effective religious bigotry would play as an election strategy, polling Canadians on whether they would be more or less likely to vote for the Conservatives if they knew they had been taken over by evangelical Christians.

Recently the foreign affairs minister said that churches should butt out of the same sex marriage debate. Consider the Prime Minister's arguments and his accusations against those who support traditional marriage. He claims we are intolerant and bigoted. If he is being sincere and not simply playing dirty politics, he must therefore see religious institutions as enclaves of intolerance.

How long will it take for the courts and the Liberals to attempt to force change upon these institutions? It does not take a big leap to imagine churches in the near future being prosecuted for being anti-homosexual and being forced to marry gays.

We may see tremendous pressure to take away the tax exempt status of churches and denominations and organizations that refuse to fully affirm and accept the homosexual lifestyle. Already a lesbian couple has a case before the B.C. Human Rights Commission claiming discrimination because a Catholic Knights of Columbus hall cancelled their wedding reception.

The ball is rolling and we must put a stop to it now before it becomes unstoppable. That is why Parliament must immediately take steps to protect and affirm freedom of religion in Canada.

My constituents in Fleetwood—Port Kells have made it clear how they want me to vote on Bill C-38. One Monday morning I logged on to my office computer and there were more than 1,400 e-mail messages regarding same sex marriage. Only three or four e-mails were in support. All the rest opposed the legislation. This was on just one day.

I have also held town hall meetings to discuss this issue, conducted surveys and made it clear where I stood on marriage during the 2004 election campaign. I believe that the unique character and institution of marriage should be strongly respected and legally recognized.

I will therefore be voting to retain the traditional definition of marriage because it is our party's policy. It is what my constituents want and I believe it is the right thing to do.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and honoured to stand here today and speak in favour of Bill C-38. I can understand, however, the concerns of many here in the House, which I consider to be emotional concerns with regard to marriage and the aspect of civil marriage which we are discussing here today.

If we look at marriage carefully, we can see that it is made up of four components. There is of course the legal concept of marriage. Then there are the social and traditional concepts of marriage, and of course we have the religious concept of marriage. These are the four pieces.

Today many of us have friends who have participated in only one of those parts of marriage, the legal part. In the old days we used to call it the town hall wedding. People were married in a town hall. They have never had a church wedding but they are considered to be married. We know that in fact this has been so for a long time for many people.

Why they wanted to get married, if they did not wish to take the religious ceremony, was that they believed in the social and the traditional concepts of marriage, where they tell their families and their friends and society at large that they consider that bond between themselves to be one that they want to contract for life in the hopes that they would cement their relationship. At the same time, they were therefore able to get all the legal considerations pertaining to marriage.

Therefore, we know that marriage can exist in this country and in other countries around the world where only one component is taken, that being the purely legal component of marriage. I would like to say that this is what we are talking about here today. Let us look at the legal concept of marriage.

Historians have told us that as far back as 2 B.C. and 1 B.C., under Roman law, marriage was a purely contractual relationship between two people, a man and a woman. Marriage was only undertaken among very wealthy families and contracts ensured that property and lands stayed in the family and that there was an understanding of that division.

Marriage also ensured that any heirs of those two people would get those lands and property when those two people passed on, because as we know, in those days many children were not legally of the two people. They did not want bastard children, as they were called in those days, seeking to get those lands and inheritances. It was a purely legal contract.

We also know that in 1 B.C., 100 years later, within civil Roman law, there were homosexual couples who were also allowed to participate in that selfsame marital contract.

I want to move on to this fact that the legal concept of marriage began as purely legal thing. Later on, if we want to go into the religious concept of marriage, we can look at the Council of Trent. Those who are religious scholars would know that the Council of Trent was made up of 24 councils or more and went on between 1545 and 1563. At the 24th Council of Trent, the religious component of marriage was formalized. That council suggested that the marriage would have to be a religious union between a man and a woman. This was only at the 24th Council of Trent.

However, I want to talk about the legal institution of marriage because that is what we are discussing here today. We see it as a separate concept. In fact, the legal institution of marriage saw its greatest evolution in the 19th and 20th centuries. For our purposes, let us look at the evolution of legal marriage nowhere else but in Canada.

The first marriage act in 1793 came out of the Anglican church. It was therefore extended only to Anglican priests to marry people. It was in 1798 that the Presbyterians and Calvinists were allowed to marry. At the same time, however, aboriginal people were considered unchristian so they were not allowed to participate. In 1929 marriage extended to other religious denominations. However, it was only in 1871 that Jews were legally allowed to marry in Ontario under the auspices of a rabbi or in other ways.

In 1882 Parliament again debated the legal institution of marriage. The debate then was whether a man could marry his deceased wife's sister. I would like to draw members' attention to those arguments.

The bishop of Nova Scotia of course cited many biblical texts and then said that if a man was allowed to marry his deceased wife's sister, that would lead to polygamy because he would want to marry all of her sisters eventually.

We heard this in 1882 and 200 years later they are still making the same arguments and we are listening to the same thing. Nothing that was promised in 1882 by a man marrying his deceased wife's sister has come to pass.

In 1925 only a man could get a divorce on the basis of adultery, with no proof whatsoever. A woman had to have proof. We can see that even then marriage was an unequal contract.

In 1950 marriage became purely a civil ceremony performed by judges and other officers. That ended the religious monopoly on marriage in Ontario.

In 1970 it was still legal for a husband to rape his wife in a legal marriage.

Thus, we are talking about the evolution of the laws of marriage. What I am saying is that those laws evolved because they were responding to inequities in the system at the time. They continue to do so.

In fact, let us look at the United States, where there were miscegenation laws. In 1967 the first state to change this was Virginia, in Loving v. Virginia, which said that two people of a different race could get married. I think members would be surprised to know that the very last state that made these laws illegal was Alabama in 2000. Prior to that, in Alabama a mixed race couple could not legally get married.

I want to bring to the House this progression of thought to the point that what we are talking about here is righting inequalities that have been going on for two centuries in the whole concept of a legal marriage. We are now seeking to suggest that under our charter, in its complexity, the beauty of the charter is that it has tried to balance the concept of equality under the law with understanding things like religious feeling, tradition, et cetera.

The charter was written so that the legal component of marriage could be extended as part of our equality rights for minority groups in this country while still allowing religions to continue to have their own law, their own dogma and their own decision to do so.

As I said and as I will refer to again for members, the fact is that I have a lot of friends, as I am sure members have, who had a town hall wedding and never did have a religious wedding. This is what we are talking about.

The churches will decide who they wish to choose to enter into that ceremony, that solemnization, and the state is saying that it cannot, under equality provisions in our charter, suggest that any minority group, whether we like the minority group or do not like the minority group, should be excluded from due process under the law to a major legal, social and traditional institution.

That is the basis of what we are talking about here, so it is about minority rights. We do know that in fact the Chinese Canadian National Council, which is supporting same sex marriage, is supporting it on that simple basis. As a minority group, its members fear that if we start suggesting we can discriminate against one minority group, we can start the process of discriminating against other minority groups.

Our history has shown us that in the past we have denied due process of law and access to legal institutions in this country to certain minority groups for various reasons. We only have to go back 50 years ago to the Chinese being unable to bring their wives here and marry or to the fact that we put away Japanese and Ukrainians in internment camps without due process of law.

We are talking here about changing the process of law. That is what we are talking about here: access to the legal institutions of this country, which should not be denied to a minority group.

I will end with one quick thought. There is a group that nobody has talked very much about except to say that marriage is about children. Indeed, marriage is about children. I am here to tell the House that today we know that gays and lesbians can have children because of artificial insemination. I have delivered lesbian women who became pregnant, went to full term and delivered a baby just like a heterosexual woman. We know that heterosexual couples use the same technology to have children if they are unable to have children otherwise.

I am saying that by denying same sex couples with children access to marriage, we are creating a second class of children in this country. We have done away with the old days when we had illegal children, bastard children who had no rights. What we are now creating is another group of children. The children of a same sex couple will not be equal under the law to the children of a heterosexual couple because their parents cannot get married even though both couples used the same reproductive technology in order to have those children.

I am just saying that it is about fairness and it is about equality under the law. I want to speak very strongly in favour of this. I think people who think and who care about equality will in fact agree with me on this one.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Miramichi for his strong defence of traditional marriage. We have heard a number of speeches in the House about that and appreciate him taking a stand on that.

Before we get into the issue at hand, I would like to talk a bit about something that happened today, and that is the Senate appointments that have been made. Once again we have seen the Prime Minister dither for months. We have had multiple announcements that he was about to make these appointments and he has finally done that. Today he has truly buried the promise that was made that he would be the person to bring in reform. We see another promise made and another promise broken by the Liberal government.

Basically the appointments today are a slap in the face for Canadians who have stood up for fairness. We are used to hearing the term with regard to some of these appointments as being hacks, flacks and quacks. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has turned to old political cronies and those kinds of people rather than listening to the democratic will of the people.

Alberta MPs and the people of Alberta in particular are the ones who should be upset because they held elections and committed themselves to the process of trying to pick their senators fairly. The Prime Minister has said that he will absolutely refuse to abide by those results, which is an insult to Albertans and an insult to all Canadians who have a concern about this.

In my own province of Saskatchewan we thought it was interesting that as the MPs sat down to discuss the two appointments that were made, none of us had ever heard of these folks before. Apparently one of them was a campaigner in that extremely successful Liberal campaign in Saskatchewan in 2004 when the Liberals lost virtually all the ground they had and were only able to keep the finance minister's seat. I guess this is a reward for working for him, but we will try to make sure that campaign is even less successful next time than it was this time.

I wanted to make that comment. It is important we talk about the fact that democracy has once again been subverted by the Prime Minister and that yet again we see a promise made and a promise broken.

With regard to Bill C-38, I want to make a point of thanking the folks across the nation who have been defending marriage. In particular I think of the Defend Marriage Coalition that has been put together and which has been very strong in its defence of traditional marriage. It is probably no surprise to anyone to hear that I will be supporting the traditional definition of marriage.

I will read a statement made by an MP made because I think he states fairly well the position that is important. He stated:

Moreover, many MPs, reflecting the commonly held view of the vast majority of their constituents, maintain that marriage cannot be treated like any other invention or program of government. Marriage serves as the basis for social organization; it is not a consequence of it. Marriage signifies a particular relationship among the many unions that individuals freely enter; it's the one between a man and a woman that has two obvious goals: mutual support and procreation of children (barring a medical anomaly or will). No other type of relationship, by definition, can fulfill both goals without the direct or indirect involvement of a third party.

I would back that up and I wish the member who said it would back it up because he is currently the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who has completely changed his position.

One of the frustrations for me is to see the Liberal leadership flipping and flopping on this issue. Many of the members held the position fairly strongly just a few years ago that they would support the traditional definition of marriage and protect it but we see now that they have completely flopped.

I would like to read a few comments that were made by some of the present Liberal cabinet ministers to point out how inconsistent they actually are. I have a further comment by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who now says that he will oppose the traditional definition of marriage. In July 2003 he said that the majority of the Liberal caucus members supported the traditional definition of marriage.

In March 2005 he said, “The court decided that the definition of marriage should be changed, wrongly in my view. I need to have your support”. I think he was talking to a church group at the time saying that he needed to have the group's support to ensure the error would not continue. Some time between March and now he has changed his mind.

He also told churchgoers in 2003 that the court judgment legalizing same sex marriage was an error that he needed help to correct. He also pointed out, and the Supreme Court actually also noted this, that in not appealing the Ontario Court of Appeal decision the Prime Minister broke his covenant with the House and the Liberal caucus. I would agree with him. I believe the court also said that the government had abdicated its responsibility when it did not appeal the decisions that were made early on.

Other Liberal cabinet ministers have made some of the same points. I want to read something which the present Deputy Prime Minister wrote in 1998. It is pretty definite. She stated, “No marriage can exist between two persons of the same sex. For us and this government, marriage is a unique institution.

She went on to say, “The definition of marriage is already clear in the law in Canada as the union of two persons of the opposition sex. Counsels from my department have successfully defended and will continue to defend this concept of marriage in court“. Obviously she has not kept her word because the government has not done that.

In March 2000 she said, “For us in this government, marriage is a unique institution; it is one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”. Unfortunately, today she does not take that same position.

In 1999 she said, “The institution of marriage is of great importance to large numbers of Canadians, and the definition of marriage as found in the hon. member's motion is clear in law”.

She was referring to a motion that was made then and backed up the idea that traditional marriage should be defended and needed to be defended.

In another statement, which I am sure we have all heard, but probably her most definitive statement, she said, “Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriage”.

We have seen a poll in the last few days that ranks our profession as one of the lowest, if not the lowest, in Canada in terms of credibility with the public. It is when statements like that are made and then people completely change their positions that cause people to wonder why they should believe anything a politician says. It is a good question and actually an accurate one when someone has completely flip-flopped on an issue like this.

Other members of the government have also changed their positions. However if I were to go into all of that we would be here for a lot longer than 10 minutes The question is whether those people can be trusted. The answer is obviously no.

It has been more than just the ministers. The Prime Minister himself has dithered and flip-flopped on the issue. When he finally decided which way he would go he decided to make this an issue of human rights. It is interesting. If it were an issue of human rights, one would think that he would force his entire caucus to vote with him or else free them to vote their conscience. However he has not done that so it cannot be that big an issue of rights. It may be that it is a half issue of rights because he is only holding the cabinet captive and apparently freeing the backbench. However when they see how the cabinet votes they will know which way to vote if they want to protect their careers.

There really is no freedom over there. We are glad to have it over here and are able to vote according to our constituents' wishes.

I just heard a member of the NDP say that the majority of his constituents were not with him but that it did not matter because he was going to vote against them anyway. Hopefully they will show that kind of enthusiasm for him at the next election by carrying that out to its logical conclusion.

One of the things that really concerned me were the comments that were made by the foreign affairs minister in late December when he basically told the churches and the people of faith that they should completely butt out of this debate. I have to very vociferously disagree with him. The quote was that the separation of church and state is a beautiful invention, but he completely misunderstood what he was talking about. The separation of church and state of course means that the state will not establish a specific church as the state religion. It does not mean that people of faith cannot have opinions and cannot come into the public forum and discuss those opinions.

I was also concerned when I heard the Liberal deputy government House leader make the statement that if marriage commissioners did not fulfill their duties they should be sanctioned and disciplined. I have great concerns with the government's attitude toward religious freedoms. It talks a lot about this being an issue of human rights but on the other hand it does not seem to be all that interested in protecting religious freedoms.

I wish I had longer to speak today but I will conclude with the words that Justice La Forest read in the Egan decision. 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 raison d'être 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. It would be possible to legally define marriage to include homosexual couples, but this would not change the biological and social realities that underlie the traditional marriage.

Because of its importance, legal marriage may properly be viewed as fundamental to the stability and well-being of the family and, as such...Parliament may quite properly give special support to the institution of marriage.

We can only pray that this misguided and wandering Liberal government will finally hear and apply these words.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-38 creates a major change in the social and cultural values of our nation. It redefines marriage. It challenges the religious and moral beliefs of our religious organizations.

As legislators, we are attempting not only to change laws, but to rewrite dictionaries. The Collins Concise Dictionary & Thesaurus , for example, describes marriage as “the state or relationship of being husband and wife”, or “the legal union or contract made by a man and a woman to live as husband and wife, or the religious or legal ceremony formalizing the union”.

The British North America Act 1867 that structured Canadian laws, states in section 91, subsection 26, that marriage and divorce are the exclusive legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada. However, section 92, subsection 12 states that each province may exclusively make laws dealing with the solemnization of marriage.

The question is who can define marriage?

In 1982 the Canadian government adopted a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 15(1) 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.

The interpretation of this section has been a matter of contention both in the debates to place it in the charter and since 1982 in demanding rights and benefits. It should be pointed out that most of these terms describe very public and highly visible characteristics that could be the subject of discrimination.

Such is not the case with the new arguments based on sexual orientation. The architects of the British North America Act and the legislators in 1982 did not acknowledge this concept. In fact, for many years after 1867, same sex activities were perceived as unnatural and sometimes and often illegal.

Today we have a more understanding attitude toward those who favour or love people of the same sex. Nevertheless, one's sexual preferences are not necessarily a discernible characteristic and we have no justification or reason to intrude into one's private behaviour. Yet we have people of the same sex desiring to undertake legal contracts which they describe as marriage.

The case of Egan v. Canada was decided in 1995 by a very close vote of the Supreme Court, by a vote of 5 to 4. Through this decision the Supreme Court declared that spousal benefits under the old age security legislation should be extended to people of the same sex.

Since 1995, same sex relationships have benefited from this ruling. Pension benefits, compassionate leaves and health care arrangements have been extended to those who have same sex relationships.

At the same time, Egale and others have demanded a formal recognition of these relationships and nothing short of the term of marriage has been deemed acceptable by this group. Through its efforts, three judges from Toronto decided that two people of the same sex could be married. Ontario and six other provinces have supported the concept of same sex marriage.

As legislators, we must be disappointed that these three judges showed contempt for Parliament as they ignored the fact that this Parliament, through the work of the Standing Committee on Justice, was conducting extensive hearings and was preparing a report to this House on marriage and relationships. They also ignored a very important motion that was accepted by the House in 1999 that defined marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. Many who voted to support this concept in 1999 are yet members of the House.

What is marriage? To many Canadians it is a sacrament. This bill transcends the understanding that our society and that from most corners of the globe has on marriage. It casts aside moral and social values that have existed for centuries.

Does this justification of this new definition infringe on our religious groups who have traditionally been responsible? Is our state infringing on the domain of our religious leaders? Many would reply in the affirmative.

From the volume of petitions, letters, cards, e-mails and telephone calls, we must recognize that many Canadians, probably a majority, are very upset with this legislation.

Each of us must answer very specific questions: What is marriage? What is its purpose? Who can or cannot become married?

Parliament reviewed the conditions of marriage in 1990. The parliamentary secretary referred to this when he offered scientific and genetic reasons that prohibited certain marriages between a man and his sister or a father and his daughter.

Bill C-38 explains that persons related lineally or as brother or sister should not and could not be married. Is this section of the bill reflecting scientific or moral judgments? It would appear to be the latter as there is little chance for persons of the same sex producing children from their own relationship.

On one hand, the drafters of this legislation had little concern for morality in planning for a new concept of marriage. However they had strong objections to other relationships that could be established for benefit purposes.

Marriage has been a time-honoured institution, with specific responsibilities, benefits, obligations and possible outcomes. Those who enter into this contract do so in a very legalized arrangement that demands a concern for the other's welfare and a responsibility to and for the children who could result from this physical union.

It is my belief that our Parliament should not alter the definition of marriage. If we are to redefine marriage, if we are to destroy this centuries old concept, we should adopt a form of civil union that would enable any two people, regardless of gender, with or without physical sex, to enter contractual arrangements to enable the signatories to rely on one another for responsibilities and benefits.

Bill C-38 would do little to enhance our society or to promote the values that strengthens its culture. I would urge all members to reject this bill and would encourage, also, those who are concerned with its outcome, to continue their efforts to see that they get their required result of this particular legislation.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-38, the civil marriage act, that proposes to legalize same sex marriages in Canada.

I believe there are defining moments in the life of a Parliament and the lives of members of Parliament, moments that help define who we are and who we want to be as a country, what we believe and what we will stand up for. I believe this legislation is one of those moments.

I, along with my party, will support the bill. This is not a decision I take lightly nor is it an easy one. I welcome the debate in the House and in our country. I welcome the participation of religious leaders. There are people of goodwill and strong faith conviction on both sides.

My own Catholic bishops have invited all married Catholics to participate in this debate. I welcome that invitation. I myself am celebrating the 22nd anniversary of my marriage this year. I want to go on record with three essential statements about my position.

First, it has been said by some in my own community and elsewhere that my position contradicts my Catholic faith, when in fact my faith very much shapes and determines my support for the legislation, and I want to say something about that.

Second, I also want to be clear, contrary to the statements of some in my riding that I am not listening to my constituents, I am here today speaking for constituents in my riding. It may not be all of them. It may not in fact be a majority, but they are my constituents and I want to give voice to their words too.

I believe that the demands of justice and human rights are ultimately the deciding factor in my discernment. However, I assure the people of Sault Ste. Marie that I listen very carefully to all my constituents.

Third, I hope by contributing here and elsewhere to a respectful dialogue on this issue together we can make happen here what did not happen with similar legislation in the Ontario legislature when I served as a member. It was about 10 years ago on a fateful day where I saw the betrayal of a group of people from the gay and lesbian community looking for affirmation of their rights and equality before the law. That did not happen then. I can never forget how destructive that was for them, how wrong it was for that legislature at that time and how upset I felt. This Parliament has to lead and not let the courts do our work for us.

I recognize we are not going to satisfy everyone. When I think back to where public opinion, laws and mindsets were as little as 10 years ago, we have come a long way.

In some media stories, reporting my position on the bill, it has been stated that I would be voting in favour despite my personal Roman Catholic beliefs. I believe same sex marriage for civil society is a justice issue, but I want it clarified that I believe this is so because of my personal Roman Catholic convictions, not in spite of them.

I have not dissociated myself from the church. I cannot because it is that same church, whose leadership disagrees with me today, that inspires me to say this. It is the right thing to do. It was the spirit of Vatican II that challenged me to inform my conscience and that informed conscience says that we must reach out to Bill, Scott, Libby and Réal and all members of the gay and lesbian community and say that they are as whole and as wholesome as all humanity and worthy of all the gifts life has to offer, particularly the gift to love and to be loved and to be creators and co-creators of life in all its forms. They know this already. Their communities know this. It is time that the law proclaims this reality.

I respect my church. I respect it and I love it enough to be able to tell its leaders when I think they are wrong. I know there are other good and faithful Catholics who think the same. I have done everything asked of me by my faith in giving great weight to its teaching, reflected on my lived experience, prayed and thus informed my conscience. I believe, as my church expects, that I am being morally coherent and not separating my spiritual life and my political life.

It has been important for me to recognize the balance in the legislation that upholds human rights for same sex couples and that pays great attention to the principle of religious freedom. We must do everything to work with the provincial authorities responsible for marriages to enshrine and protect this principle of religious freedom. I believe we have ensured that we will not have our churches dictating their views on marriage to the rest of the community and that community not interfering with the teaching, beliefs and practices of our religious communities.

Recently a Sault senior citizen asked me if I meant that the bill changed nothing about what the church could teach, believe or practise. I assured him that this was the case.

This issue is not about me. The most powerful moment in my almost 15 years at Queen's Park was when the government, of which I was part, brought forward a bill to extend benefits to gay and lesbian couples. I remember the sense of betrayal that day in the legislature when that bill did not pass. The gay, lesbian and bisexual community believed that they had rights, that they belonged. How disappointing for them. I do not ever again want to experience another day in Parliament like that day.

I believe we all have grown in our understanding of people who are perhaps different from ourselves in all kinds of ways. That is a hallmark of the tolerance that characterizes Canadians and Canada. We are not finished with this journey toward tolerance. We hope that we and our children move from labels, hateful language or stereotyping to putting names and positive experiences on people different but equal to ourselves.

The media in my home town has been filled with many legitimate views opposed to my position, but there are others. I heard from a young man from my riding named Andy who wrote:

So please, help me to grow my future family. You are the person that will dictate whether or not this will happen...Think of the love that you will be granting to the thousands of people who only ask to be normal like others and to be left alone.

I heard from parents of a gay son and a lesbian daughter, happy that their gay children might be on an equal footing with their heterosexual brothers or sisters. They do not want the orientation of either to bar their children from normal occupations, promotions or pensions.

Some believe a compromise on this contentious issue might be a civil union option for same sex couples. The Leader of the Opposition, with others, offers something sort of like marriage, except that it would not be marriage, no symbolism, no tradition, no social stamp of approval and acceptance. Courts have dismissed the separate but equal argument.

The question is this. What is the right thing to do in 2005 for human rights and for our society? How do we do this well, to move people and society along and not polarize one another? I see the progress people have made in their thinking on this in the past 10 years and I do not want it lost. I believe that access to civil marriage for gay and lesbian couples will add to the stability of Canadian families and Canadian society.

This is a world that needs more people who are willing to make loving, lifelong commitments to each other and who are willing to take full responsibility for their relationships. In a matter for all society, the Charter of Rights does matter. We cannot have two classes of people.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue debate on Bill C-38, which is the civil marriage bill. We will resume this debate when we return from the Easter adjournment.

We will also want to deal that week with third reading of Bill C-30, which is the parliamentarians' compensation bill, to which my hon. colleague was referring. The Judges Act will certainly come forward in the fullness of time.

We will also return to Bills C-23 and C-22, the human resources and social development departmental legislation.

We also that week hope to debate report stage and third reading of Bill C-26, the border services bill, and Bill C-9, the Quebec economic development bill.

Thursday, April 7, shall be an allotted day.

I know that the House is also very eager to begin debate on the budget implementation bill that was introduced earlier today. However, in keeping with commitments made to the opposition members to give them adequate time to study and discuss in caucus this new legislation, I will call second reading debate on that bill early in the week of April 11.

While I am on my feet, I would like to wish a very happy Easter to all members in the House and officers of the House.

Civil Marriage Act

[Tony Ianno, Liberal, Minister of State (Families and Caregivers)]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in this debate as the member of Parliament for Trinity—Spadina and the Minister of State for Families and Caregivers.

In my view, we are not just debating civil marriage. We are helping to determine the nature of civil society, because how this issue is resolved will have an important impact on the place of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canadian life. The charter is a reflection of the commitment that all Canadians made to each other, a commitment built over many generations. It is a clear statement of Canadian values shaped over this country's history. Hopefully there are fewer and fewer opportunities in the life of a nation when people must stand up for issues of basic human rights.

I was moved early in life by injustices displayed on daily television screens and in the media; by the days when blacks in the United States and unfortunately many immigrants in Canada faced unimaginable barriers in their daily lives; when books like Black Like Me expressed the life of discrimination; when laws were justified as being equal but separate; and when inspirational leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. were standing up to fight against bigots who wanted to keep white supremacy alive.

Our society has evolved. Respect for human rights has grown and the charter is an important part of that. Today civil marriage for gays and lesbians is the law in seven provinces and one territory, constituting roughly 85% of Canadians. Bill C-38 will ensure that all Canadians have the same rights across the land. The bill will also reconfirm that religious institutions have the right to practise their beliefs with freedom.

My constituency is no different from others in Canada. Many of my constituents and supporters support same sex marriage. Many do not. Many Canadians may have difficulty in accepting homosexuality but do have faith in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Support for the charter is overwhelming. It is a common denominator for Canadians. By talking to people about the issue from that perspective, I have had success in changing the way they look at it.

Once they realize the Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows for freedom of religion and that churches, mosques, synagogues and all other religious institutions will be allowed to practise their faiths freely, they understand. A civil marriage is applied for at city hall. A religious marriage is applied for in one's church, synagogue, mosque or individual religious institution.

Religious institutions determine the parameters for religious marriages. In a pluralistic society the parameters of civil marriages are determined by Parliament and legislatures, along with our courts, to ensure equality, fairness and justice for all citizens.

The charter is there to ensure that minorities, the weakest in our society, are protected. Extending rights to others in no way takes rights away from anyone. When the majority can decide for the minority without regard to the charter, it creates a dangerous situation. If the decision is made to use the notwithstanding clause, which is the only way to change the law in those eight jurisdictions, it sets a dangerous precedent which allows for a slippery slope. It could then be used by the majority whenever it wanted to suspend what is right and just, whenever the majority decided it was expedient. All minorities in our country would become vulnerable.

Our nation has come a long way in its growth. As a respected centre of human rights, Canada has evolved from the days when Chinese people were charged outrageous fees, the head tax, to come to Canada for the privilege to work, and when their spouses or family for many years thereafter were not allowed to immigrate.

We are all too familiar with the time when women were not persons, were add-ons and not able to vote, never mind sit as parliamentarians; when Canada showed no compassion in 1914 and did not let a ship of Sikhs land; when in 1939 over 900 Jews aboard the SS St. Louis , fleeing the Nazis, were turned away from our country, condemning many of them to the Holocaust.

We choose many examples of a way of thinking of the past we would sooner forget. That is not the nation we are now proud of and take pride in. We believe that Canada is the best nation in the world. In our pluralistic society our Canadian values of humanity, tolerance of diversity, opportunity, compassion and decency are a way of life.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms helps perpetuate these values. It protects the traditional institutions in a way that makes us proud. If it were not for the charter, someone who wears a turban could be denied the opportunity to serve in one of our most treasured institutions, the RCMP, because tradition dictated otherwise.

The charter is one of the reasons that Canada is globally respected for the ability to shape a national partnership in which we all can participate. I can testify to that respect. I accompanied former prime minister Jean Chrétien to Portugal when that country was the head of the European Union. Many leaders of other nations were present. They asked how it is that Canada works with so much immigrant diversity while in their own countries, despite relatively little immigration, the Europeans were having such difficulty with discrimination. I was introduced by the then prime minister who explained that I, as a first generation Canadian, was a prime example of our Canada. I pointed out what I believe is one of the bedrock reasons for Canada's achievement. For us, diversity is not a liability; it is an asset.

Overwhelmingly, Canadians recognize the value of bringing together people of many backgrounds, beliefs and lifestyles, and giving each of them the opportunity to contribute to their own unique strengths. It is our very diversity that breeds harmony. We learn from each other. We build on each other's strengths. We love the nature of our country and we are committed to making it work. We encourage citizenship, education and participation in the political process. That, I explained to people from other countries, is Canada's underlying strength: our celebration of diversity and respect for one another.

That is a wonderful legacy to inherit and one on which we have an obligation to build. That is why, as long as I am able to, I will always stand for the weakest in society. I will always work to ensure that no one is left behind and that every Canadian, no matter their background, colour or creed have all the rights that each of us wants for ourselves and our loved ones.

This brings me to Bill C-38. This bill does not take anything away from anyone. Rights do not become less precious when they are shared. The bill ensures that all Canadians receive the rights they deserve from a nation that is respectful, tolerant and compassionate. It ensures that we treat all Canadians as we want to be treated, as we would want our children to be treated. Perhaps that is the best way to look at it.

Imagine how we would react if it were one of our children seeking respect for their rights. If one of my four children came home one day and said to me, “Daddy, I am gay”, I would want to look him or her in the eye and say, “I love you and support you without reservation and will do everything I can to make sure that you are accepted as an equal member of our society”. I would want my children to know that I took the opportunity on the day that I could be counted, in the highest institution of the land, to stand up for our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Remember, Mr. Speaker, that today you may be part of the majority, but one day you too might be part of the minority. It is very important that we protect all in our society. In voting for Bill C-38 I will be voting to ensure the charter's place for all Canadians.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the representative of the people of Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, I am pleased to rise to defend marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to explain why we will not be supporting Bill C-38.

For many, the most compelling reason to support the government's legislation to expand marriage to include same sex couples is the belief that it is a matter of human rights. In fact, according to some, including the government, it is a matter of fundamental human rights.

We all share the desire to be a nation that recognizes and promotes human rights and fundamental freedoms but is same sex marriage one of them? If it is, then it is clear that I and all Canadians should support this initiative. But is it? That is the question before us today.

To answer this question, one might start with the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights which, in its preamble, declares that “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”. These are noble sentiments with which all of us agree.

One could consider the more recent United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The covenant is composed of 53 articles that cover much of human experience. The sixth article, for example, states that every human being has the inherent right to life. Another, article 9, affirms that everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. Clearly, these are fundamental human rights. However does the declaration or the covenant include marriage as a human right? In fact, they do. Article 23 of the covenant affirms, “The right of men and women of marriageable age and to found a family shall be recognized”.

The declaration of human rights also adds that men and women, without limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.

According to this, it would not be discriminatory for the state to disallow a marriage because an individual has not reached full age, while it would be discriminatory to disallow a marriage because of race, nationality or religion.

What about on the basis of gender? Although gender is not explicitly mentioned, would it not be reasonable to interpret the article to mean that it would also be discriminatory to disallow a marriage between two individuals simply because they are of the same sex? In my opinion, no. Let me explain why.

First, if we read both the covenant and the declaration, we will notice that every other article that relates to persons uses words like “everyone” or “no one”. Only in these marriage articles will we find the gender specific words “men and women”. By any accepted principles of interpretation, that distinction must be considered significant.

Further, the article also says that these men and women have the right to marry and found a family, clearly something that was considered the outcome of a heterosexual union at the time of the writing of the declaration and covenant. Skeptics might disagree with that interpretation and argue that it could still mean two men or two women, because partners in same sex relationships can and do found families.

However, that is not how the United Nations Human Rights Commission itself interprets it. In the now well-known Quilter case in 2002, the commission received a complaint when the New Zealand court of appeal denied that the prohibition in New Zealand's bill of rights against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation implied a right to same sex marriage. The appellants argued that the New Zealand high court decision was a violation of the international covenant on civil and political rights. What was the outcome of that case? The Human Rights Commission rejected the complaint.

Clearly, it was not a matter of fundamental human rights to the one body on earth whose raison d'être is their preservation.

Frankly, I can understand the argument of the Liberals that this is so clearly about human rights if it had not been so unclear to them just a few years ago. In 1999, during a debate on this issue, the Deputy Prime Minister, then the minister of justice, made the following unequivocal statement:

Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages.

I fundamentally do not believe that it is necessary to change the definition of marriage in order to accommodate the equality issues around same sex partners which now face us as Canadians.

I support the motion for maintaining the clear legal definition of marriage in Canada as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Members of Parliament on both sides of the House of Commons overwhelmingly supported the traditional definition of marriage. If it is a matter of fundamental human rights, then that day in 1999 this chamber was filled with human rights abusers.

Some will counter that times change and Canada's Supreme Court has decided that refusing marriage to same sex couples is discriminatory and a violation of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but has the court made that ruling? In fact it has not.

It is true that courts in several provinces have reached that decision but they had also previously reached contrary decisions indicating that the matter is not as black and white as some assume. However because the federal government decided not to appeal, those lower court rulings were never tested by the Supreme Court.

One might ask, did the Supreme Court just last December not rule that the traditional definition of marriage contravenes the charter? No, it did not. First of all, it was only a reference, not a ruling. Second, although the government specifically asked for an opinion on whether the opposite sex definition of marriage was a violation of the charter, the court declined to answer, leaving the matter instead to Parliament.

That is not to say however, that the Supreme Court has never offered a judgment on the definition of marriage. It has. Its most recent ruling is in Egan in 1995 when Justice La Forest concluded:

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 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. It would be possible to legally define marriage to include homosexual couples, but this would not change the biological and social realities that underlie the traditional marriage.

Justice La Forest has identified the crux of the debate. If marriage is inherently a heterosexual union, then it cannot be considered discriminatory to exclude same sex couples from it.

It is my conclusion then that inclusion of same sex couples in the institution of marriage is not required as a matter of fundamental human rights or because it is discriminatory not to do so. However, although not required, would it not be possible, as Justice La Forest said, to legally define marriage to include homosexual couples? Yes, it is possible if as a society we choose to do so, but that decision will need to be based on criteria other than human rights.

Some will base their decision on their religious world view and in a pluralistic country I cannot see how that is inappropriate. The fact of the matter is there are religious people on both sides of this debate, as there are irreligious people. Others will base their decision on their personal experience within their own family and circle of friends. Still others have grown tired of the debate and just do not care, but that is not an approach that I can responsibly take.

While it is appropriate and helpful to consider the issue from a variety of other viewpoints, I also need to look at the legislation from a public policy perspective. In fact I believe that members of Parliament are negligent in their role as policy makers if they do not do so. Let me elaborate.

The debate is not about human rights. It is about marriage. It is not just about redefining the word marriage. It is about reconstructing a historically heterosexual social institution that has served as the cornerstone of human society for millennia.

The key question then is whether this is good social policy or not. Actually I ask the same questions of this legislation that I ask of any other. Will this be good for Canada? Will this make Canada a better country? Has this initiative been sufficiently studied to be confident that there will be no unintended consequences? Is there broad public support for this initiative?

After reflecting on these questions for months, I am not convinced that this will be good for Canada. It is not just enough to say that nothing will change as the government is saying. Can we change a fundamental social institution without significant consequences? Apparently the government thinks we can, but many social scientists disagree.

The debate before us is not about human rights. It is not about one's opinion of homosexuality. It is not about traditionalism versus modernism. It is not about religion versus secularism. It is about marriage and what we want it to become.

Instead of continuing down this pathway that leads to an uncertain destination, let us strengthen our resolve to respect the fundamental dignity of all human beings regardless of sexual orientation, while at the same time working to support and nurture the historic institution of marriage between one man and one woman. We can do both. In my opinion, we must do both.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate today on Bill C-38, the civil marriage act.

This is clearly an issue of equality of minority rights under the charter. I have been very clear and consistent with my constituents on this issue. It is an issue that was around prior to the last election. In the course of that campaign, at all candidate meetings and other meetings that I specifically arranged, such as with the Knights of Columbus in my home town of Penetanguishene, I made sure I explained to them, prior to casting their votes, that I would be supporting any legislation that came forward after the Supreme Court reference dealing with this issue and treating it strictly as an equality issue and minority rights issue in defence of our charter.

First, I would like to go over a bit of the history of the charter and how it came to pass. We often hear concern that the courts are governing the country through judicial activism. In fact, the courts are only exercising the authority given to them by Parliament to interpret certain provisions of the charter. We have to remember that and consider it as a basic exercise in democratic will when the Parliament of Canada passes a charter and then puts in a strong independent judiciary to protect basic freedoms and rights from the whims of partisan politics.

As time passes, parties come and go with different perspectives, but our basic fundamental rights and freedoms remain. They need to be protected in an independent fashion and that was the thinking of Parliament at the time the charter was passed.

We now have a manifestation of the implementation of the charter. It states that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. On the issue of same sex marriages from the civil perspective, that is what this legislation is intending to do.

The reference to the Supreme Court that I mentioned previously also had a question dealing with another provision of the charter, that being freedom of religion. The reference, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, does in fact confirm that the churches will remain and retain the right to marry couples that are in conformity with their religious beliefs and would not be compelled in a religious ceremony to marry couples that they feel is not appropriate for religious purposes.

We hear concerns being expressed from time to time about the sanctity of marriage being put in issue by having a law that civilly recognizes same sex marriages. I suggest that it is very clear that the sanctity of marriage is that which comes from the religious ceremony and religious perspective and the churches are being fully protected in making those decisions.

We hear concern about the fact that churches will not be protected, that they will be obliged to perform ceremonies with which they disagree. All I can do is refer to my church, the Roman Catholic church, which had and still has the policy of non-ordination of women. We know that women have been declared equal in every facet of our society. The equality provisions of the charter apply fully to women, yet no one has ever brought a court application to compel the Roman Catholic church or any other church that does not ordain women because of section 2 of the charter which says that under the freedom of religion provisions it is in the domain of churches to make the decision as to who they ordain and who they do not.

That was an example of the assurances people should have. The courts will recognize the freedom of religion provisions in the charter and ensure they can function in conformity with their religious beliefs.

The civil side is another matter. The charter and the courts have interpreted that to mean that our society must allow complete equality and not a separate category of civil union.

When I speak with my constituents I frequently refer to the civil remedy of divorce. If we are concerned about the institution of marriage, then we should be concerned about the real threat to marriage, which is the civil remedy of divorce, which has existed for quite some time. It is recognized by some churches but not by others. Some churches will remarry divorced people and other churches will not and yet society has found a way to function. People have the opportunity to belong to the church that conforms with their personal view vis-à-vis the civil remedy of divorce. I equate that to civil marriage as opposed to religious marriage. It is up to the individual to seek the type of marriage, whether it is a civil marriage or a religious marriage, in accordance with their personal beliefs.

Some people have proposed that the notwithstanding clause be used to overturn the court decisions that have found it unconstitutional or against the charter to deny civil marriage to same sex couples. The notwithstanding clause is there to protect rights. I agree with the Prime Minister when he said that the notwithstanding clause was something that he would consider using to protect the churches' right to refuse to marry same sex couples if ever the courts were to determine that they should be forced to marry them but that it should never be used to remove the rights of same sex couples to have access to our civil institutions like everyone else.

I have another concern.

I am a member of the franco-Ontarian linguistic minority. If we can successfully make the argument to set aside the charter on the issue of civil marriage because it is a moral rather than a legal question then, in the case of minority language rights, we could suggest dropping official languages policies in this country because they are too expensive. It is a question of savings. That is the risk.

I believe it is very important always to defend the charter since it is there to defend everyone in our society. That is the issue.

One of the reasons I ran for Parliament was that I could see the challenges to the charter coming. During the vote on the opposition day motion in 1999, I was one of the 55 members of Parliament who voted against the preservation of the traditional definition of marriage. I saw it then and I see it now as an attack on the charter.

For those reasons I am pleased to say that I will be supporting Bill C-38.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to unequivocally support Bill C-38, the civil marriage act, and to urge colleagues in the House of Commons to attend to the swift passage of the bill to create uniformity of the current law with respect to marriage across Canada.

It is trite to say that the current legal definition in Ontario, the province which I come from, is the voluntary union for life of two persons. This definition was confirmed by the Ontario Court of Appeal on June 20, 2003, when it upheld the lower court's decision in Halpern v, Canada, Attorney General, et al. The then existing common law definition of marriage, the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, was found not only to violate the dignity of persons in same sex relationships, it was also found to violate equality rights on the basis of sexual orientation under subsection 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Courts in seven other jurisdictions have already found that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms requires that civil marriage be available to same sex couples as well as opposite sex couples. Moreover, last December the Supreme Court of Canada said and we agree, that it was preferable that Parliament create uniformity of the law across Canada. We believe that the federal legislation is the best way to provide a clear Canada-wide approach, and the government will not allow the balkanization of marriage.

For many Canadians and many parliamentarians, acknowledging and accepting this new definition of marriage is a difficult issue. I too acknowledge that this new definition represents a very significant change to a long-standing social tradition and institution. However, long-standing customs and traditions are not reason alone for our laws not to evolve and reflect the reality of our society as our society evolves.

Let me begin to explain by first looking at what the history of the definition of marriage is and where it came from. The definition of marriage has its roots in the common law and the statutory marriage laws of England. It is generally understood that in common law, the definition that is routinely referred to is found in a statement of Lord Penzance in 1866 English case of Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee. That definitional statement of Lord Penzance reads as follows:

I conceive that marriage is understood in Christendom, may for this purpose be defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Let us stop here for a second. It is very important to remember that this definition of marriage dates back over 139 years ago to 1866. I am sure that there is not a person in the House that would not agree with me that our Canadian society has evolved significantly over the last 139 years. In fact, neither the law of our land nor our society has remained static.

It is also important to note that when the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decision in the reference on the legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes, the court specifically reviewed the 1866 definition of marriage and noted its reference to “Christendom”. In doing so, the Supreme Court of Canada commented as follows:

The reference to “Christendom” is telling. Hyde spoke to a society of shared social values where marriage and religion were thought to be inseparable. This is no longer the case. Canada is a pluralistic society. Marriage, from the perspective of the state, is a civil institution. The “frozen concepts” reasoning runs contrary to one of the most fundamental principles of Canadian constitutional interpretation: that our Constitution is a living tree which, by way of progressive interpretation, accommodates and addresses the realities of modern life. In the 1920s, for example, a controversy arose as to whether women as well as men were capable of being considered “qualified persons” eligible for appointment to the Senate of Canada. Legal precedent stretching back to Roman Law was cited for the proposition that women had always been considered “unqualified” for public office, and it was argued that this common understanding in 1867 was incorporated in s. 24 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and should continue to govern Canadians in succeeding ages.

It was indeed that famous persons case, to wit, the case known as Henrietta Muir Edwards and others versus the Attorney General for Canada and others, that in 1930 the House of Lords held that the British North America Act planted in Canada a living tree capable of growing and expansion within its natural limits.

It was also in that same decision the court did not accept the argument that because certain customs had been in existence at a time when a law had been passed, that those customs now precluded a different interpretation of the law.

The Attorney General had argued, when the law regarding persons was passed at common law, a woman was incapable of serving a public office. However, the House of Lords noted:

The fact that no woman had served or has claimed to serve such an office is not of great weight when it is remembered that custom would have been prevented the claim being made or the point being contested.

The House of Lords then went on to say:

Customs are apt to develop into traditions which are stronger than law and remain unchallenged after the reason for them has disappeared.

The court concluded, by saying:

The appeal to history--in this particular matter is not conclusive.

I would respectfully submit that these arguments are equally applicable to those individuals who would invoke the notwithstanding clause to enforce the old common law definition of marriage. Customs and traditions are challengeable and the appeal to history is not only not a conclusive argument but one that does not take into account the evolution of our society or the realities of today's society.

There is no doubt that change from traditions and customs always invokes debate. In fact, there is historical evidence to that effect. I suppose it would be trite to say that history often repeats itself.

In preparing for my intervention today, I went back to read the debates that occurred in 1918, when the House of Commons debated women's suffrage and whether women should be entitled to vote.

Although those debates occurred almost 100 years ago, the arguments made in 1918 are almost the same arguments that are being made today. In fact, I would very respectfully submit that the arguments being made today against Bill C-38 are similar to the ones made against women's suffrage. Many are made on very emotional, passionate grounds, but without any evidentiary proof whatsoever of alleged consequences.

I would like to quickly share with members, because I know my time is limited, what Mr. Fournier said in 1918, with respect to women's suffrage:

This bill, with respect to woman suffrage, which is now under our consideration, is only one of the forms of feminism which are now spreading throughout the world. The question may be asked whether all the laws which have opened the liberal professions to women and which conferred upon them the right to vote, or to be elected to Parliament, have had any beneficial results on the progress of civilization, or have advanced the happiness of humanity. It is our urgent duty as law-markers to examine this bill with the greatest care, and not to accept as necessary a radical reform, the advantages of which of which have not been clearly demonstrated. I for one say that it will be a great error if, on the pretext of giving a transitory liberty to a class, we should bring down women from their throne at the fireside, where natural law has placed them to fulfil a divine mission. If the consequences of this moment to take women from the home and to lead them into the public arena where men are disputing great questions, are good, it is evident that we must vote in favour of this bill; but if, on the other hand, it can be proved that those consequences would be evil for the country and regrettable for the home, it is our duty to vote against it.

I would submit that the debate speaks for itself.

To conclude, it has always been my belief that to deny same sex couples the right to marry is to deny them access to one of the fundamental institutions of our society. The new statutory definition of marriage does not create new rights. It simply ensures equality before the law.

Amending the old common law definition of marriage is not only about acknowledging how our society has evolved over the last 139 years, but also reflects the fundamental Canadian values of fairness, equality and non-discrimination. As the Prime Minister has noted, this legislation is about the kind of nation we are today and the kind of nation we want to be.

I know and I believe, as the Prime Minister said, that there are times when we as parliamentarians can feel the gaze of history upon us. They felt it in the days of Pearson; they felt it in the days of Trudeau. We, the 308 men and women elected to represent one of the most inclusive, just and respectful countries on the face of the earth, feel it today.

I feel privileged to have the honour to be part of this momentous period of Canadian history which confirms our charter and our values as a Canadian society. I know that my decision to uphold the charter and minority rights is the right decision. It is also a decision which I know my children, David, Lara and Alex, will always be proud of.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Conversations have occurred among the parties and I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That at any time, on or before April 11, when second reading of Bill C-38 is under consideration, when no member rises to speak on the amendment, or subamendment, all questions necessary to dispose of the said amendment to second reading of Bill C-38 be deemed put, a recorded division requested and deferred until the end of government orders on Tuesday, April 12.

[Bob Mills, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to address the House on a very difficult moral issue. Everyone, including those who are married, those who have chosen not to marry and those who have not taken the opportunity to choose, has an opinion on this issue. Those opinions are based on people's own experiences as well as their values and beliefs. This is a complex public issue that will impact Canadians long into the future.

Let me begin by saying that preserving the traditional definition of marriage does not imply the denial of same sex rights. All the benefits and obligations granted to married couples under provincial and territorial laws and programs are granted equally to common law couples of the same sex and of the opposite sex in the majority of provinces.

We want to affirm equality rights while also upholding marriage as a heterosexual institution. Neither is this debate about jeopardizing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. With the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act of 1999 and the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act of 2000, Parliament has already extended to same sex couples the constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity. The current Deputy Prime Minister confirmed this when she said:

The definition of marriage in law in Canada is already the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. It is not necessary to pass such legislation as in legal terms it would not add to or clarify the present state of the law in Canada.

The protection of human dignity has been the courts' basic function since the adoption of the charter in 1982. Once the requirements of dignity and equality are satisfied, the courts should not arbitrate between the possible acceptable solutions but leave it to Parliament. The decision of whether or not to use the word “marriage” depends on factors other than the charter.

A brief history shows that the Liberals are really breaking their promises to Canadian people on the issue of maintaining traditional marriage. Let us consider the following examples. In 1999, by a vote of 216 to 55, the House of Commons adopted an opposition motion which stated:

--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.

The motion was supported by the Prime Minister, then finance minister, and by the Deputy Prime Minister, then justice minister.

In 2000 an interpretive clause was added to the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act stating that nothing in the act altered the existing meaning of marriage as “the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”.

Speaking on this act, the Deputy Prime Minister said:

This definition of marriage, which has been consistently applied in Canada and which was reaffirmed last year through a resolution of the House, dates back to 1866. It has served us well and will not change. We recognize that marriage is a fundamental value and important to Canadians.

On September 16, 2003, an opposition motion identical to that of June 1999, expressing Parliament's support for the opposite sex definition of marriage, was defeated in the House of Commons by a narrow vote of 137 to 132, yet key Liberals voted in favour of that motion. Does this mean that these members do not believe in the same human rights that the Prime Minister claims this debate is all about?

These examples show that Liberals constantly change their positions on social issues. It also underscores the fact that this debate is not only about equality.

Of course, the Supreme Court came down with its ruling on November 9. When it issued its ruling, its findings were that the provision in the draft bill authorizing same sex marriage is within Parliament's exclusive legislative authority over legal capacity for civil marriage under subsection 91(26) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The provision is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and, in the circumstances giving rise to the draft bill, flows from it. So we go on with that court decision, which basically puts it back into our purview to make that decision.

I believe, after talking to Canadians across the country, that they would much rather us deal with the issues of the country, and I could list all of those as opposed to this subject. Yet the Liberal government brings forward this legislation and pushes it on the country.

There are legal issues around same sex marriage legislation. The bill extends equal access to civil marriage to same sex couples while respecting religious freedom. That is if we trust the government to do what it says. I have given a number of examples of where it said one thing and then did another. We are very used to that having been in the House this long. I really question whether the government really means it.

The government claims that it is equally committed to upholding religious freedom and that nothing in the bill will affect the existing charter guarantee. The problem is that the Liberals cannot credibly guarantee that Bill C-38 will protect religious freedoms because the right to marry falls under provincial jurisdiction.

Bill C-38 offers no protection for provincial marriage commissioners who refuse to conduct same sex civil ceremonies for personal religious reasons. In fact, marriage commissioners in B.C., Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland have already lost their jobs. There is also some concern that organizations may lose charitable status if they do not permit same sex marriage celebrations on their property. This would put those churches that refuse to perform these marriages out of business.

The government is curtailing public debate by not considering the civil union option even though the court has not rule on the specific definition of marriage.

We get into the moral and religious issues that the debate about same sex marriage is not only about rights. Marriage is also a core social institution that predates all modern constitutions.

Many Canadians believe that marriage is fundamental to our society and that its primary function is to create a stable and supportive foundation for procreation. Many studies show that traditional marriage is best for children and recent statistics also show that traditional families are declining.

Many religions have their own requirements for marriage and may impose additional requirements on the perspective marriage partners. For example, Judaism will not marry a previously married woman unless she has received a get. Governments have no rights to force a mosque, temple or church to marry a couple who do not conform to their religious beliefs. The current draft legislation does not protect against such action in the future.

Comments made by the foreign affairs minister that “churches and religious organizations have no place in the public debate on same sex marriage” betrays the commitment of the Liberals on defending religious freedom. Because it cannot guarantee religious freedom, Bill C-38 may have the long term effect of stigmatizing faith in public forums and may reduce the diversity of religious beliefs.

As far as the political issue is concerned, we feel the majority of Canadians are opposed to the bill. In the area that I come from, there is an overwhelming opposition to it.

We have offered a reasonable compromise. We want to ensure that gay couples will have all the dignity and equality that the charter guarantees while also preserving religious freedom and defending the sanctity of marriage. Civil unions fulfill those requirements.

The Liberal caucus is divided on the issue of same sex marriage. This suggests that same sex is not only about equality rights and the charter, as the Prime Minister has framed it. The record of the Liberals on same sex is discomforting. They have been inconsistent.

In 1999 they were for the traditional definition of marriage. Now most are against it. How can we explain this sudden change of heart? Did the debate all of a sudden become an equal rights issue, political pressure, insecure nomination or blackmail by the Prime Minister?

Much more could be said. What we need to do now is simply encourage Canadians to contact the offices of the Prime Minister's office and Minister of Justice to let them know exactly what they feel. Most people would rather be talking about health care, the environment and the critical issues in the country. Look how many days are occupied with this debate.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will not be supporting the present bill to alter the existing definition of marriage. I assure my colleagues and constituents that I did not take this decision lightly. My reasons are secular and philosophically liberal.

I favour equal legal and fiduciary rights and obligations for same sex couples but, like most Canadians, I believe opposite sex marriage has distinguishing features that make it worthy of its own designation. The word marriage, in my view, benefits from a sort of copyright, albeit not a legal one, but at the very least a cultural one.

The Supreme Court, in the Nesbit case, alluded to this copyright when it stated that marriage is firmly anchored in specific realities, and that while “it would be possible to legally redefine marriage...this would not change the biological and social realities that underlie the traditional marriage”.

My decision not to support Bill C-38 is based on a concept of liberalism that has caused me great reservations both about the substance of the bill and the process that produced it.

As a liberal, my political actions are inspired by certain fundamental principles, including three which are extremely pertinent to this case.

The first need to ensure equality in matters of public policy. Second, as a liberal, I believe that a healthy democracy depends on civil discourse in a free marketplace of ideas. By civil discourse, I do not mean polite discourse, per se. I refer instead to discourse, however vigorous, that has as its ultimate aim to seek out consensus. The key to civil discourse is the recognition of the merits of the views of the other. It is based on the idea that one's opponent in debate is sincere and motivated by the same intellectual honesty we are.

I read with great interest the opinions of those who favour a redefinition of marriage, including the opinions of the courts and of some of my constituents and close friends. I am not indifferent to their arguments.

Similarly, I believe that those who support same sex marriage must recognize that the traditional concept of marriage is based on a solid, valid philosophical point of view which is both universal and longstanding.

The third principle that guides me in the current debate is related to the role of the state in a modern, liberal society.

Individuals in liberal society, as opposed to those in early monarchies, for example, are not subjects of the state. They are sovereign. The state is subservient to, and depends for its legitimacy, on the citizenry. The state's right to interfere in civil life and culture is therefore limited. The liberal state and its representatives, whether legal, bureaucratic or legislative, lack the authority to proactively redefine society's most basic cultural norms in the absence of an obvious democratic demand to do so.

It is worth mentioning in this regard the distinction between political liberalism and doctrinal liberalism. The latter, to which I do not subscribe, grants the state greater latitude in refashioning the common culture.

Political liberalism was born of the recognition that the state could accommodate the different conceptions of religion that began to emerge in the 16th and 17th centuries only by stepping back from the conflict and refusing to enshrine one particular view.

The secular debate over marriage has an intensity common to matters of religion. This is not surprising, for, to quote the Halpern decision, “the decision of whether or not to marry can...be one of the most personal decisions an individual will ever make...as personal as a choice regarding, for instance...one's religion”.

John Rawls, the seminal philosopher of the modern liberal tradition, has updated political liberalism for our time. In his view, modern political liberalism must strive to remain impartial as a way of respecting a diversity of secular core values as well as religious ones.

In other words, when deep disagreements over secular core values emerge, it is not the role of the liberal state to impose a particular solution. Any attempt to legally impose a particular ideology damages civic life, distorts liberalism, undermines constitutional consensus and places communities holding different views in permanent tension with the law. We can observe all these phenomena in the present debate over marriage.

The state may have overstepped its bounds on the marriage issue. Bill C-38 refashions the meaning of marriage in Canadian culture. On a symbolic level, Bill C-38 reduces marriage to a vehicle for the affirmation of mutual romantic and sexual feeling and commitment between two individuals. Marriage's profound role of linking the generations and bridging the gender gap is no longer central to the institution.

By putting its imprimatur on one particular conception of marriage over another, the state has marginalized adherents of opposite sex marriage, whose views are mainstream in an historical and global context. The state has done so in a well-meaning attempt to further enhance the status of gay and lesbian Canadians, who have too long suffered from the ravages of discrimination that in some cases has ruined lives. But the state has at the same time in effect told those Canadians who are deeply attached to the symbolism of the word “marriage” in our culture, a group that arguably comprises at least 50% of the country's population, if not more, that their views on marriage are at best mistaken or at worst immoral, since those views are inconsistent with the law of the land. I cannot in good conscience accept a solution to the marriage issue that sends such a message.

Some would say that we are at a watershed moment in the history of the relationship of the state to marriage. In the 17th century, the founding liberal philosopher, John Locke, recognized that the state could not resolve fundamental conflicts over religion. He concluded that the liberal state thus had to get out of the sanctuaries of the nation.

Because of irresolvable division over the definition of marriage, the day may have arrived to follow through to its logical conclusion Pierre Trudeau's prophetic statement that the state should withdraw from the bedrooms of the nation.

I favour engaging Canadians in a serious examination of a proposal that achieves both equality for gay and lesbian Canadians and state neutrality in dealing with marriage. The government should consider an approach raised by the Law Reform Commission of Canada: to create a neutral civil registry at the federal level, equally accessible to same sex or opposite sex couples, for the purposes of claiming federal benefits for individuals involved in formal conjugal relationships.

Following a two step process similar to France's, where a couple must first visit city hall before being married in a religious ceremony, under a Canadian civil registry system, a couple, after registering federally and partaking in a civil union ceremony in provincial jurisdiction, could be united in a same sex or opposite sex, religious or non-religious, privately sponsored ceremony of their choosing in as public a way as the couple chooses. Some would choose religious ceremonies. Others would use private facilitators to help write vows and perform a ceremony in a non-religious location of their choice. Marriage, thus cut loose from the state, would be allowed to settle back into civil culture and community.

A civil registry system succeeds on ground of equality. It recognizes that the state has an interest in providing a legal framework for the civil effects of interdependent relationships, but may not have a legitimate interest in defining the deeper meaning or significance of marriage. Parliament was in the process of exploring the civil registry option, among others, when the Ontario Court of Appeal effectively cancelled its work.

In January 2003, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights undertook hearings across Canada on the issue of same sex marriage. It even drafted a report which was to have been tabled a few days later, when the Ontario Court of Appeal handed down its decision. Since that decision had legal force immediately, the committee felt it had to wrap up its work.

The committee's report, which was never made public, could have been a springboard for discussion of the civil registry option.

I will thus not be supporting Bill C-38, among other reasons to provide an opportunity, if the bill is defeated, for Parliament to begin a serious examination of the civil registry option. I am not suggesting that this option is perfect. I have my own strong reservations about it. Canadians would need to be asked how deeply they value state sanctioned marriage or whether the imprimatur of the state is judged by the majority to be of little consequence to the meaning they and their community give to their conjugal relationship.

I have raised the civil registry option and the view of liberalism on which it rests in order to highlight that, in fashioning a new definition of marriage, the state is not acting in a neutral way. It is imposing a particular ideology on a cultural institution that has developed organically, acquired its legitimacy slowly and taken root firmly over centuries and millennia, without state intervention, but rather with the state's quiet and respectful acquiescence.

I lament the semantic distinction being drawn in this debate between “religious” marriage and “civil marriage”, as if there are two separate meanings of marriage. Civil marriage, between a man and a woman, means as much to some as religious marriage, between a man and a woman, does to others. Marriage is marriage.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to Bill C-38, the same sex marriage act, and in support of a Canada in which liberties are safeguarded, rights are protected and the people of this land are treated as equals under the law.

As the representative for the people of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I am proud to be their voice in a debate which tears at the very fabric that binds Canadian society, the traditional definition of marriage.

I have been accused of opposing the Liberal Party plan to change the traditional definition of marriage because it is a popular position to take. This is not about being popular. This is about protecting religious freedoms and the ability to speak without the fear of persecution.

Opposition to this latest attempt by the Liberal Party to undermine the family is so strong in my riding that even some Liberal Party supporters are ashamed to admit they ever supported the party. In fact, because of this latest attempt at social engineering they are confiding in me that never again will they support a party that has so little respect for democracy.

I congratulate my leader, the hon. member for Calgary Southwest, for his thoughtful and well-informed remarks on this attempt by the Liberal Party to change the definition of family in Canada. I can confirm that I have heard nothing but praise for his speech, as opposed to the rambling, incoherent comments made by Prime Minister Dithers.

Dithering between that which is a right and that which is a privilege has been a hallmark of the Liberal administration. Make no doubt that the people of Canada know the difference and recognize a confused ditherer when they see one.

The traditional definition of marriage, that is, the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, is being debated today. It is one that I am honour bound to represent my constituents in their wishes.

Most Canadians by now are tired of this debate. Indeed, they are asking why we are having this debate at all. Is it that important that the Prime Minister is prepared to threaten members of his own party with an election or be fired from cabinet, rather than allow the merits of the issue argue the Prime Minister's position?

It really says something when it is only by threat that support for the destruction of the traditional definition of marriage, and by extension the definition of family as we know it, is obtained in the government caucus.

If anything demonstrates the weakness of the Liberal Party argument in bringing forth this legislation, it has to be in characterizing this bill as minority rights. The Prime Minister, or as he is known internationally in such prestigious publications as The Economist and Jane's Defence Weekly as Mr. Dithers, has been quoted as saying that one cannot pick and choose the minority rights or the fundamental rights that one is going to defend.

I have heard the argument and it has been repeated to me that in the case of same sex marriage, members of Parliament should ignore the majority of their constituents, that they should vote against an institution that has been a pillar of society for thousands of years in order to placate less than 1% of the population. That is the figure provided by StatsCanada as not being heterosexual. This is also assuming that all gays and lesbians aspire to some type of union, legal or otherwise, which is clearly not the case. Rights are rights.

Time does not permit me to cover all the points on why this legislation should be defeated. I will leave it to my colleagues on all sides of this House to articulate to Canadians why this attempt to redefine the family is a desperate attempt by a desperate ditherer who has nothing of substance to offer Canadians in the way of new ideas or a vision for the future.

I intend to focus my remarks on a reference made by my leader in regard to the absolute insincerity of the Liberal Party position when it comes to minority rights and how Prime Minister Dithers and his party have ignored the equality rights of minority religious groups and education in the province of Ontario, even after international tribunals have demanded action.

I have a letter that was sent by the president of Civil Rights in Public Education, Mr. Renton Patterson, to the Minister of Justice when the government bill to change the traditional definition of family was introduced. I read parts of this letter into the record from the position of neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the contents:

A great deal has been said and written about same-sex marriage. Of note, word from the Liberal government, the Prime Minister and yourself in particular, has expounded on the human rights aspect of the legislation and its necessity for adoption because the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms demands it.

In particular, you were heard to say on CBC news, to the effect that: “...the bill is a vindication of the Charter rights of tolerance, respect and equality of all Canadians and minorities, not only gays and lesbians.” We both know, however, that the Charter does not protect the “equality of all Canadians” because your government apparently condones religious discrimination practiced by the Ontario government...

Greg Weston of Sun Media reported on February 2nd that: “the Liberal bumpf passed around yesterday (proclaims): “This government represents the rights of all Canadians equally, and will not treat some Canadians as second-class citizens.” “Rights are rights--none of us can, nor should we, pick and choose the minorities whose rights we will defend and those whose rights we will ignore.”

You are also quoted as saying: “It is the responsibility of Parliament to ensure these minority rights are uniform across the country.”

It follows that all of these same arguments you and your government are using to protect the rights of gays and lesbians to marry can be applied to what must surely be your next crusade, the one to remove...discriminatory public funding...[in] the school system.

The Jewish community is a perfect example of a minority religious community. Through Arieh Waldman, a Jewish parent, the United Nations Human Rights Committee found Canada in violation of article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 2.2 of the Covenant demands that: “...each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized by the present Covenant.”

If statements made by you and your government have any truth in them, it will be acknowledged that the Jewish community in Ontario is no less a minority with regards to treatment in religious schooling than gays and lesbians in Ontario are a minority with regard to the right to marry. It is therefore incumbent on your Ministry to immediately institute the process required by article 2.2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to ensure that: “This government represents the rights of all Canadians equally, and will not treat some Canadians as second-class citizens.”

In the above context, failure on the part of the federal government, and your Ministry of Justice, to take action to correct the two-tier citizenship of Ontarians will quite properly be taken as an anti-Semitic act.... As you have said: “It is the responsibility of Parliament to ensure these minority rights are uniform across the country.”

In light of all that has been strongly-argued by your government, your Ministry and your government have no option but to take all measures necessary to abide by the direction given to you by the United Nations Human Rights Committee decision in Waldman...

What measures will you take to ensure religious equality in Ontario and what is the timetable for these measures to take effect?

So far Mr. Patterson has been answered by the government only by a deafening roar of silence. So much for defending minority rights.

The following are extracts from more letters Mr. Patterson has written to the Prime Minister. While some of the content I am not in agreement with, I believe they illustrate the growing disillusionment which all Canadians have with the Prime Minister and his failure as a leader, as recently confirmed to the world in the prestigious international magazine The Economist :

“Dear Prime Minister: On December 29, 2003, I wrote you a letter, copy attached. The letter was answered by L. Kingston, an executive correspondence officer. A copy of this letter is also attached. I was not happy with the answer I received. As you can read, I was brushed off by the writer saying, 'the matter you have raised does not fall within the jurisdiction of the federal government'. For clarification, the 'matter...raised' involves your statements concerning the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the separation of church and state. The charter is part of the Constitution of Canada and the matter of the entanglement of church and state is evident in section 93 of the Constitution and section 29 of the charter”.

Mr. Patterson wrote: “I beg to differ with L. Kingston, but the Constitution is 'within the jurisdiction of the federal government'. At a time when you are faced with the sponsorship scandal, you have pleaded with the public to be believed. You said you had no knowledge about corruption in the sponsorship scandal. You said: 'When the charter speaks, we've got to listen', and you said: 'I certainly believe in the separation of church and state'. I happen to believe that when you say you believe something, that you are open to measures that can bring that belief into reality. I have merely pointed out an instance which is anathema to your beliefs. It is my belief, then, that as a statesman, you will be open to measures which can rectify wrongs in this country and see your beliefs become reality. L. Kingston has painted you, to me, as one who will take no suggestions or criticism”.

Mr. Patterson further wrote: “I live in Pembroke, one of our streets is Paul Martin Drive named after your father, and I truly believe that when we residents see that street sign, we think of integrity, we think of honesty, and we think of statesmanship. I believe that the Prime Minister I know will not take lightly the fact that the country he now leads is in violation of a human rights covenant Canada has pledged to uphold, and will have the integrity to take measures to remove the violation. As previously stated, I have listened to you and I believe you”.

These letters represent a minority view that the Prime Minister has chosen to ignore. He cannot have it both ways. Remember it was the Prime Minister who said rights are rights. The Prime Minister is being insincere, disingenuous and he is wrong. The shallow attempt by the Prime Minister to hide behind the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is recognized by thoughtful Canadians for what it is. It is a crass attempt to deflect attention away from the worst scandal ridden administration in living history.

I am proud to stand in this place on behalf of the overwhelming consensus of the constituents of my riding and their desire to see the traditional definition of marriage preserved; that is, the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others as expressed in our traditional common law.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join this debate on Bill C-38, a bill to redefine marriage. I listened very carefully to my colleague across the way, the member for Portage—Lisgar. He and I and others on both sides of the House each come to this debate from different perspectives. We are for the most part well experienced in life, with good levels of education. This debate proves that well-meaning people on both sides can come to different conclusions. For me, this underlines the importance of continuing to have respect for each other's position.

I have come to a very different conclusion on Bill C-38, which I plan to support and have planned to do so for quite a long time, since the courts made it very clear that this was a matter of the Charter of Rights and respecting rights in our country. I understand that there are different views and that we have come to our conclusions differently. For me, it is about tolerance and recognizing that our friends, neighbours and sometimes even family members who may be homosexual are equal citizens in our society and that we have a Charter of Rights which is a model for the world. I would hope that other countries would look at our Charter of Rights and be prepared to adopt it. If they can improve it, so much the better. Certainly, it stands now as a model for the world.

I would like to take my few minutes in the chamber to discuss some of the issues raised by my constituents, and I respect all of them. Many have written letters and I am in the process of responding to each and every one of them. One of the questions that comes up often is, are the courts deciding for Parliament what we should be doing as parliamentarians? My immediate answer to that is, no. It was Parliament that adopted the Charter of Rights. We expect the courts to interpret the various laws of the country, whether it is at the federal or provincial level. In the case of the Charter of Rights, we have asked our courts to do, in this case and in many others, the work of interpreting that for us as real life situations come forward.

The courts in eight of the provinces and territories have come to the conclusion that to deny access to a civil marriage for same sex couples is contrary to the intent and spirit of the Charter of Rights. It is incumbent upon the Parliament of Canada to avoid balkanization of laws with respect to the definition of marriage and to act so from sea to sea to sea there is a consistency of definition.

The courts are not deciding for us. They have helped us in this case and other cases in interpreting the Charter of Rights. It is now for us to respond appropriately, and the government through Bill C-38 is doing that.

Many of my constituents say that they do not have a problem with same sex unions, but why call it marriage. The courts have made it very clear, and I agree, that marriage has a certain definition in society, whether it takes place in front of a justice of the peace or a ship's captain or whether it is in front of a religious official. To the two people being married, marriage has a certain important connotation. It usually and should imply a very romantic and loving relationship between the two people involved. I know sometimes marriages take place for convenience or for the purpose of assembling property. That has happened throughout history and it may happen from time to time even now. However, for the most part, people look to the institution of marriage as a reflection of their romantic and loving commitment.

I say to my constituents that we must distinguish that the institution of marriage belongs to society. It has been part of humankind's history from time immemorial. In fact, the churches were not always involved in the administration of the contracts and marriages between two people.

Let us distinguish between marriage which takes place in civil society at large and marriage which takes place in the churches. In fact, here in Ontario and in Canada generally, church officials are licensed by the provinces to actually administer the legal aspects of marriage.

For me, marriage is an institution owned by all of society. There will be those for their personal reasons who will choose to be married within a civil context by a justice of the peace or public official. I do not think it is proper to say that one group of society, that heterosexual couples only have access to an institution which by its nature belongs to all of society and that same sex couples can only have something called a union, because by definition marriage has come to have an important connotation in our society.

To those who would say that marriage is traditionally known as an institution involving opposite sex persons, traditions evolve. Churches evolve. My own church has evolved tremendously over decades and centuries, and I expect that it will continue to evolve. Maybe even some day there will be married priests or women priests. I think many Catholics look forward to that day, quite frankly, but others may not. It is in the nature of organizations that there are different points of view. Different points of view can easily exist under the same roof or within the same tent.

Traditions should not tie our hands. They should be sources of celebration. Traditions should allow for the expression of respect within a family, within a community even though within that community there may be differences of opinion. Just think of how the traditions of Christmas 50 or 100 years ago were celebrated compared to how they are celebrated today. I do not know that the traditions of Christmas now, which, sadly, include a lot of shopping, were the case 50 years ago, but some would argue that is part of the traditions of Christmas. It is not a tradition of Christmas that I look forward to quite frankly, but some people do.

Traditions are things that reflect society's evolving habits and attitudes toward things that go on around us. That because something is traditional it should not change, to me is a very weak argument. We have to look beyond simply preserving something only because it is a tradition.

We have to look at whether overall society is getting better because we are opening ourselves up to a broader application of rights and a greater degree of tolerance. I believe that in so doing, in being more tolerant and open in society, we are making our society better not only for ourselves but for our children and grandchildren as well.

Interestingly enough, I have four adult children and none of the four has any problem with this issue whatsoever, but there would be other members of my family, more of my age or older, who might disagree with my position on this. That does not change the good relations in our family. It is a reflection of our country that we are able to have this disagreement on an important issue of rights. When the bill is passed, which I hope we will have done by June, we will continue to deal with the other important issues of the country as we are doing now, including this one. We will continue to take care of the very important business of the nation.

My friend from Portage—Lisgar mentioned that some church officials are worried about losing their right to choose whom they marry. It is a fact now that religious officials of the churches and their communities decide whom they marry. I know in the Catholic church for example, the church will not marry divorced Catholics. I am not aware of the Catholic church ever being forced to marry a divorced Catholic and I do not foresee, whether the bill passes or not, or had the issue been before us or not, that would ever change.

I do not believe the passage of Bill C-38 changes that piece of the paradigm whatsoever. In my opinion, the right of churches to choose whom they marry will continue indefinitely. In fact, it is that same Charter of Rights which guarantees that the churches can in their realms choose certain activities which in civil society may be seen as discriminatory. We have designed a Charter of Rights which allows the churches to decide whom they marry, whom they ordain and so on, whereas in civil society we do not allow ourselves quite that same degree of flexibility.

I look forward to others participating in this debate and the bill being resolved in a timely fashion and with continued great respect.

[Brian Pallister, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, to discriminate has a meaning that is a pejorative one and is in common usage, but there is also another use for the word, which means to distinguish, to pay due attention to important distinctions. The word indiscriminate, widely used as the opposite of discriminate, means confused, done with no attention. Those are two important differences.

The question here is to be indiscriminate or to discriminate, which is the appropriate use of those words. We all discriminate. In our purchases, in our associations, in our attitudes, each of us to some degree are discriminators. The charter itself is a discriminatory document in the sense that it chooses certain rights and freedoms for which it stands and it chooses others for which it does not. In that sense it is distinguishing and therefore it is discriminating.

The underlying question is not whether the charter is perfect, few would make that claim. The question also is not whether marriage is perfect. I do not know of anyone who would make that claim. The question is not whether we discriminate. Of course we all do, and both of them do. The question is whether that discrimination is justified or not.

The 2002 Gage Canadian Dictionary defines marriage as the union of husband and wife. Other dictionaries define marriage differently. The bill proposes to change the traditional definition of marriages and it proposes to do so on the basis that a same sex union should be treated as equal to an opposite sex union and that the differences therefore are unimportant.

Opponents of the bill would argue, however, that there are differences which are important. They would argue that by ignoring or denying these differences, the government is acting in a confused and indiscriminate manner, and I believe they would be correct.

The Liberal government has said that it will protect the religious freedoms of Canadians. That claim simply does not hold up, given the consistent Supreme Court record of individual rights trumping group rights. It does not hold up, given the fact that the jurisdiction of provincial governments negates federal ability to do so, to protect religious freedoms. A case in point would be the recent forced resignations of marriage commissioners in my home province of Manitoba and Saskatchewan as well on the basis that they refused to perform same sex marriages on religious grounds. The federal government cannot keep the promises it is making in the preamble to the legislation.

A local pastor and friend of mine commented to me recently that it was good that homosexual people were coming out of the closets because those closets would be needed very soon for Christians. That is a fear that many, not solely Christians, in Canadian society have.

Given the government's labelling of defenders of traditional marriage as intolerant, its ministers' attacks on church involvement in the debate, its threats of audits or revocation of charitable status of faith based charities that oppose its initiatives, words about protecting religious freedoms truly ring hollow. They ring as hollow as the Prime Minister's commitment to addressing the democratic deficit, while at the same time, forcing the members of his cabinet to vote for the bill and in so doing, denying their personal consciences and ignoring the wishes, therefore, of their constituents.

The tactics used by the Prime Minister in the debate are self-defeating. One does not defend minorities by attacking majorities. One does not enhance individual rights by attacking the individual rights of parliamentarians in one's own caucus. One does not protect religious freedoms by dismissing those who oppose the bill on religious grounds as irrelevant or worse, as un-Canadian.

Respect is nothing if it is not mutual. Where is the compromise here that allows for mutual respect? The Conservative position best accommodates that mutual respect by maintaining traditional marriage and by legally recognizing same sex partnerships. We offer a balance that is respectful and that truly reflects the values of Canadians.

Members may recall 1960s philosophers Lennon and McCartney, who claimed Love is all you need . Love is defined as a deep feeling of fondness or selfless kindness. Everyone wants to be loved. Everyone wants to love. I can appreciate the point of view of someone who supports the bill on the assumption that it is more loving to allow all couples to claim marriage as their own. If we go at this issue solely from an adult perspective, that attitude is understandable.

What of a child's perspective? If we support the bill, we believe that the institution of marriage is primarily for the benefit of adult partners and only secondarily for the children born into it. We believe in the abolition of the societal norm that says children have the right to be reared by their mother and their father and to know them.

By making heterosexuality optional rather than axiomatic, the bill would disconnect marriage from procreation. The bill contradicts the findings of the United Nations Human Rights Commission which in 2002 decided that the international covenant on civil and political rights did not confer the right to marry on same sex couples. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child recognizes the child's right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.

Society is not bound to treat all relationships equally. We should regard all persons as equal, but we should not regard all sexual or social activity as equal. This is why marriage has been endorsed as an institution in the past throughout the world because it cultivates the necessary conditions for human flourishing.

Those who support the bill, however well intentioned, are advocating a significant social experiment. It is an experiment which has been rejected virtually everywhere else in the world where it has been under consideration. It is an experiment the impact of which could be incredibly far-reaching and long lasting. It is an experiment which the government has not studied, has not researched and has not investigated. No evidence of the impact of same sex marriage has been presented by the government to the House.

The burden of proof as to why Canadian society should be so changed surely lies with those advocating the change. Yet apart from the facile and specious argument that marriage needs more couples who actually want it or that marriage should be for everyone, there is a vacuum of consideration for the consequences of this change.

Ultimately, Lennon and McCartney were wrong. Love is not all we need. We need wisdom too.

Let us not underestimate the magnitude of the change we are considering with Bill C-38. We are not just talking about modifying marriage. We are talking about a fundamental change in its meaning.

Let me talk about chess for a second. Someone claims chess is discriminatory because the pieces move differently. This is a clear case of unequal rights. This is a clear case of discrimination. The solution is that all pieces must now move in exactly the same manner. They can no longer be described differently. However, then we would no longer have chess. We would be left with a bizarre game of checkers with different looking pieces. The essence or the inherent qualities of chess would be gone.

Marriage has had at its core the characteristics of permanence, procreativity and child-centredness. It is a symbol of interdependence between men and women. If we decide that marriage is to become nothing other than a form of intimacy between consenting adults, it will represent a paradigm shift and a fundamental reinterpretation of the core social purpose of marriage.

Some argue that our position of supporting two institutions, marriage and civil partnerships for gay couples, is separate but equal and that separate cannot be equal. This would be true only if one believed that the two entities are the same. If one believes that a same sex couple is the same as an opposite sex couple, the differential description of their union would be discrimination. However, different but equal is not discrimination. Women, provided they are treated as equal to men, are not second class citizens when recognized and described as women.

Nellie McClung, who was raised in my riding of Portage--Lisgar and is a celebrated Canadian citizen and a champion of equal rights, would have abhorred the thought that the price for attaining equal suffrage was the loss of her distinct status as a woman. Women do not need to be recognized as men to be equal citizens with men. Similarly, same sex unions do not require the possession of the word “marriage” to be equal citizens in Canadian society. By denying differences, we do not strengthen equality and we do not enhance tolerance.

My wife and I have two daughters. We love them equally, just as all parents love their children equally, but they are not the same. Our daughters are different and denying those differences would make us less responsible and effective as parents. An outside observer might remark we treat our children differently and unequally or even that we discriminate against them. That would be right. We discriminate for the good of our children, for ourselves and our family. That is true with this issue as well. We must learn to treat those we love equally in different ways.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are times when certain issues in society reach through to the heart of our duties as parliamentarians, requiring us to do our best as citizens and human beings.

It is my firm conviction that this debate on Bill C-38 is the embodiment of a fundamental issue, which, at its heart, affects the lives of many Canadians, and constitutes one of those moments when we must elevate ourselves to a level of dignity and calm, which govern our conduct and the tone of our speeches. And we owe this to our constituents, who are expecting every member of Parliament to rise above prejudice and demagoguery to better seek the common good.

This essential dimension of our duty as members is, in fact, related to the primary meaning and the ultimate purpose of public commitment, the diversity of ideological and political options represented in this House aside, should guide all of us. In other words, we must do everything in our power to improve the living conditions of the people of our country, and in particular to diminish any kind of exclusion, so that every person in Canada can, in terms of who they are and they rights they enjoy, achieve their potential as human beings.

The bill calls upon us, deeply and forcefully, to remember that as legislators we must promote and protect fundamental rights. As a result, whenever some people are found to enjoy fewer rights than others because of prejudice against their ethnic origins, social status, moral and religious convictions or sexual orientation, then it is our duty to pass laws that guarantee them access to the same rights as others.

It is a duty laid upon this Parliament to work to make our country's laws consistent.

In this way, our fellow citizens would be justified in doubting the relevance of our role if they found that, while we espouse attachment to fundamental rights, we retreat when it comes time to adopt legislation to formally guarantee these same rights. Such inconsistency distances us from the sense of honour and the moral and political courage that the voters expect of us, no matter how diverse their opinions on this and other issues.

This bill also reminds us of our duty to advocate in our daily lives the very value that sets our country apart, and that is tolerance. It may be hard to show tolerance, but it is a value that shows our true character. It requires us to let go of our fears and our feelings of insecurity about what makes us different and it forces us to understand one another, people who are different, and to accept the reality of an individual's personal identity.

Tolerance does not mean having to give up individual values. In fact, it gives them more meaning. All of us in this House have ethical, religious, political and social convictions that define us as humans or public figures and that also reflect the wealth and diversity of our country. Every individual in our country is free to promote and defend their convictions and express them without fear of being persecuted or ostracized.

Some people with strong conservative values, whose Christian faith is deep and meaningful, have understood this. We should be inspired by their stance.

I am thinking specifically of the late U.S. senator, Barry Goldwater, champion of renewing conservative values in the United States, who courageously defended the rights of gays and lesbians. For him, a right became real only if it was accessible to all, which proves his unwavering dedication to what he saw as sacred individual freedoms.

I can also quote former Conservative member of this House, and devout Christian, Reginald Stackhouse. In the Globe and Mail on December 17, Mr. Stackhouse wrote, in support of this bill:

As a Canadian, I don't have to agree with gays and lesbians. I don't have to approve their marrying, I just have to respect their right to do it and live their lives in a peaceful, open way. Showing that respect is something I should do for the common good, not just for the right of gay and lesbian individuals. This country is a better place to live for all of us when we acknowledge we can be different without fighting about it.

Mr. Stackhouse's comments inspire a great deal of respect, because they are full of respect for the rights and dignity of others. They speak of freedom fully embraced, the incarnation of the pluralism in which all of us in this House claim to share.

It consists in the recognition of the right of others, as well, to be who they really are. Pluralism is enhanced through this bill with the formal recognition of each individual's right to live according to their personal beliefs enjoy respect for their identity and dignity as human beings. If we lack the courage to commit to fully recognizing this, we can talk about our attachment to pluralism and rights until the cows come home, but our words will not ring true, because they will fly in the face of our actions.

If, in Canada, we enjoy a level of freedom envied the world over, it is because we have been able to reach a social consensus around the idea that the guarantee of individual freedoms is based on respect for those of others. Consequently, my freedoms and rights cannot be protected if I use them to deny the freedoms and rights of others.

Rights exist and are extended to all or none. Consequently, we cannot allow one group of individuals to be denied rights enjoyed by their fellow citizens. As soon as we identify such a denial, we have the responsibility as legislators to resolutely and courageously remedy it.

Finally, I want to speak in my capacity as a doctor. This profession has taught me a great deal about human suffering and distress. I am happy to say that it has taught me to be constantly aware of people's general well-being, which enriches my political commitment.

As a result, I have been able to see that a number of the health problems many experience arise from profound distress and suffering, often the result of being rejected because of prejudices about their innermost and inalienable identity. Too often in our society this is so hurtful that it drives some, an alarming number of our young people in particular, to suicide because they feel they are being held in contempt, ostracized and harassed for the simple reason that they were born with a sexual orientation that differs from that of the majority. Each such case is another human tragedy, a tragedy that casts a shadow on our own dignity, as it is a sign that we are still not capable of rising to the level of human values that would allow every individual to feel accepted and recognized just as they are.

That is why I invite each of us to examine his or her conscience.

Can we allow such suffering to continue? Must we continue to tolerate people being so wounded, fatally even, by hatred and prejudice? Is it fair for some people to have rights, while others are denied those rights? Are we doing everything in our power to make our society more welcoming of those who suffer the consequences of exclusion?

It is up to each and every one of us to reflect on this very seriously, and to be aware of the consequences of the important responsibility we have for one category of citizens of our county, for their very lives even.

Undeniably, we still have a long way to go before all consciences are won over to tolerance of others and respect of their differences. It is therefore true that this bill will not solve all problems relating to exclusion of this kind, but it will go a long way toward improving the well-being of one category of citizens. We must recognize that they are entitled to the rights enjoyed by the majority so that they will feel, and will in fact be, less excluded, less rejected, thus relieving some of their suffering and distress.

This is not something that elected representatives often have the power to legislate.Today all of us here have that opportunity. Will we have enough courage and humanity to take advantage of that opportunity?

I support this bill because it speaks to our purpose in being here: to improve the lives of those living in Canada, a task that goes hand in hand with the duty to do away with exclusion. I also support it because I believe that my own dignity suffers when the dignity of others who are different from me is compromised.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for years the Liberals have misled Canadians on the definition of marriage, in the same way they have misled Canadians on the purpose of the sponsorship program. Just as ad scam used national unity as a cover, same sex marriage advocates have used the false cover of equality to mask their agenda.

Despite years of hearings and millions spent by the Liberal government to gain an excuse from the courts to redefine marriage, the Liberals still lack a mandate to proceed.

No one would debate that the Supreme Court of Canada has set itself up as the defender of minority rights in this country. If this issue was really a question about the fundamental human rights, as the Prime Minister claims, then why did the high court not say so.

The government asked the high court a direct question: Is there a constitutional requirement to redefine marriage? The court refused to answer. It said that it was merely a political question for Parliament to decide.

Why is this government pursuing this? Let us take a look at the history of this issue.

In the House of Commons and in the courts the government took the public position until June 2003 that marriage was the union of one man and one woman. Suddenly, just days after the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that marriage should be redefined to include any two persons, the government reversed course 180 degrees. It completely flip-flopped on this all important issue.

What happened? Did the government have a remarkable conversion experience? Did it have a revelation of a brand new human right than on other national or international court of justice or even the UN commission on human rights has ever recognized? What changed in the course of literally a few days to suddenly convince the Liberal government of this new right?

Is there another explanation? Did the government decide long before this issue ever made it to the courts to pursue the redefinition of marriage in law? Did the government in fact have a hidden agenda all along, a hidden agenda that was first exposed publicly in June 2003, a hidden agenda that had to remain hidden for years because too many Liberal MPs in the backbenches would not tolerate it without the courts taking the lead?

There is evidence to support this proposition. First, the federal government has given same sex marriage advocates, Egale, hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years to support their litigation.

Second, the Liberals have given millions more to the court challenges program which has funded numerous other intervenors in these court cases. The court challenges program even funded the litigation strategy meetings that led to marriage being challenged in the courts in the first place.

Third, there is the extremely tight relationship between Egale and past and present prime ministers and justice ministers. According to a National Post editorial of March 1, 2000, the former justice minister, now Deputy Prime Minister, “Already agreed with Egale to consult them before deciding whether or not to seek leave to appeal. Egale simply told the minister what to do and she did it. Her secretive collusion with Egale, with whom she pretends to have an adversarial relationship in court, raises more than political questions. It raises questions of ministerial ethics as well”.

There are no legal reasons for redefining marriage but are there even legitimate political reasons for doing so?

First, there is no significant petition before this House demanding same sex marriage but there are hundreds of thousands of signatures opposing it. This is not a trivial point. The reason Egale and its supporters cannot generate a significant petition is that there is no support for their position, even in the gay community. This is supported by the evidence offered by provincial governments that only a few thousand same sex couples have married in the two years since provincial appeal courts redefined marriage.

Statistics Canada has been collecting census data on same sex couples who cohabit and yet we know that merely a few per cent of such couples have taken advantage of this situation. We have clear evidence that there is little interest in same sex marriage in the gay community.

On the other side of the coin, we have clear evidence from the general public of a desire to maintain the traditional definition of marriage. I have already mentioned petitions. I know other members have already spoken to the thousands of communications they have received in support of a one man and one woman marriage, and my riding is no different.

I am hard-pressed to find any serious political justification for redefining marriage either. This is not a values neutral question. Redefining marriage will have serious consequences for Canadian society. In fact there is hard evidence of some of these consequences already.

First, let us consider the impact on children. According to the social science research, children do best in the home of a married mother and father. The courts are required to consider the best interests of children. If the definition of marriage is redefined, same sex adoption and fostering will forever legally deny some children a mother and a father.

It is not speculation that this will be the reality. I note the New Brunswick Minister of Family and Community Services told the CBC on February 8 that his province will move to allow homosexual adoption:

Once Ottawa passes this bill, if they do, then as a provincial government we have to adhere to the federal laws, and if the federal definition of marriage includes same-sex couples, then we will have to look at that legislation.

Minister Tony Huntjens maintains that the province would not make the change if Bill C-38 were defeated.

Second, the educational curriculum in the public schools looks set to change as a result of this bill as well. A school board in my riding fought a case all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada in recent years for the right to a curriculum that represents the values and concerns of parents. The parents won that case, but as a result of the B.C. appeal court decision redefining marriage, the province of B.C. is already being sued by activists who want to force same sex marriage into the public school curriculum. If Parliament passes Bill C-38, the rights of these parents to a curriculum that reflects their values will be extinguished.

Third, we are also seeing the rights of faith based groups threatened by the redefinition of marriage. I note the case of the Knights of Columbus Hall in Port Coquitlam, B.C. This church organization faces prosecution for refusing a same sex wedding celebration.

Fourth, we are seeing the rights of marriage commissioners violated by the provinces. Marriage commissioners have been forced out of their jobs because of their religious beliefs. That is wrong and a violation of their human rights.

This case bears special mention because the government has inserted a clause in Bill C-38 that fraudulently purports to protect the religious freedoms of clergy, but as one Liberal MP said, it is a hoax. The Supreme Court has already pointed out that the clause is outside the powers of the federal government and can have no legal effect. Indeed only the provinces can protect marriage commissioners through legislation, as we have already seen, and as we have already seen, they are doing exactly the opposite. The provinces are currently violating commissioners' rights and are being publicly applauded, I should add, by the government's deputy House leader.

This is a very disturbing trend developing here with respect to the rights of Canadians of faith to speak publicly and act on their beliefs. Canadians of faith are being ordered by the Liberals to leave the public square. Recently the Minister of Foreign Affairs had no trouble telling the church not to comment on this issue, that it had no business addressing affairs of state, but of course this issue directly impacts the church. The Knights of Columbus Hall in B.C. is likely only the first of many such cases pitting the rights of religious institutions against this proposed new sexual licence.

That situation has caused a chilling effect already. I spoke with a church administrator in my riding who stated that the church has been given legal advice to break its ties with a government sponsored program that benefits the community because of the implications of this legislation. They are worried that cooperating with government would make them vulnerable to religious persecution.

It is time that those opposed to faith based views ended their religious discrimination and extended the courtesy of tolerance to the over 90% of Canadians who claim to hold religious convictions and allowed them full access to the public square. That includes the Prime Minister as well. He is violating the religious convictions of many of his own cabinet ministers by forcing them to vote for this bill. If the Prime Minister does not respect the consciences and religious convictions of his own friends and allies, then what hope do ordinary Canadians have of seeing their freedoms protected?

Without religious freedom, there would be no democracy. Religious freedom is ultimately the freedom to express one's most deeply held beliefs with the full protection of the law. From pure religious freedom springs forth all the democratic freedoms, including the freedoms of speech, press, association, assembly and the right to vote.

In summation, I support the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Bill C-38 is neither constitutionally required nor publically desired. It will negatively impact children, their parents and teachers. It will negatively impact religious institutions and faith leaders. It is bad public policy and it must be defeated.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand today and talk to Bill C-38.

Before I get into my comments I want to begin by thanking the residents of Scarborough Centre who, a year and a half ago, responded to a questionnaire I sent out which asked them for their views on this most important issue and whether they agreed or disagreed. It is not every day that a member of Parliament has this most unique opportunity to express the views of his or her constituents. Therefore, when we vote on this bill, either in favour or not, it will not simply be our view, it will be the view of those constituents.

I would like to give those statistics that came into my office that were compiled September 8, 2003: 94.3% were against redefining the traditional term of marriage and 5.7% were in favour. When we do surveys or polls, it is said that 500 is a substantial number, 600 is very good but 800 is even better. Well, this was 1,050 responses and that does not include the hundreds of e-mails, telephone calls, letters, et cetera.

What am I driving at? When we have this most unique opportunity on a free vote, as the Prime Minister committed to and kept his word, I believe that if each member of Parliament had approached it in a similar way, they would have then truly expressed the wishes of their constituents and, indeed, the vast majority of Canadians. Unfortunately, that has not been done.

I would like to refer to what was said earlier today when the previous member and the member from Niagara West—Glanbrook spoke. What I do not like about the debate that is unfolding is the fact that instead of pointing out the pros and cons, the merits or demerits of this, they consistently attacked the Prime Minister and ministers.

Let us put everything into perspective. The government does not have a majority in numbers. Let me say for the record what the numbers are in the House today. The Liberals have 133 members. The Conservative Party has 99 members. The Bloc Québécois has 54 members. The NDP has 19. We have two independents and one vacancy. If my math serves me correctly, the opposition side has 175 members. Therefore, if they chose to defeat this bill they could do it. However all I heard today was how only the Prime Minister's voice matters. That is just not true and it is being intellectually dishonest. The Prime Minister committed to a free vote and that is what we are having.

What does the member of the Conservative Party have to say about his colleagues who will be voting in favour of this bill, unlike members of other parties, for example, who have insisted that it is mandatory to support this legislation?

I will take a moment to express some of my concerns with the legislation. When I was approached after the 1993 election, I was asked for my personal view on marriage and I said that I supported the traditional term of marriage as that between a man and woman to the exclusion of all others. However I did not go out and persistently try to change people's minds. I told them that we would win when the issue came to the floor, that we would have an open and transparent debate and that everybody would have their say. Here we are today.

What happened back in that mandate? We brought forth legislation to avoid discrimination based on sexual orientation, which was good legislation. However, leading up to that debate I can recall the member from Burnaby, Mr. Robinson, saying that was all they wanted, some protection. After that vote was successfully achieved, they were out there saying that it was just a beginning, which was when I started to have concerns.

Let us fast-forward down the road to today where we are saying that we should simply pass Bill C-38 given that the Supreme Court of Canada put it in our court. My concern about this is that the vote has not even unfolded yet and we are hearing the member for Vancouver East, who is concerned about adoption, saying:

It would seem to me to be obvious that if you recognize their right to marry, then on what basis do we deny people the right to adopt children?

Yukon's adoption laws are ambiguous, while gay couples are denied adoption rights in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nunavut. Other jurisdictions have various interpretations. My concern is that adoption rights will be the next step.

I also am not convinced that religious groups will be protected. Let us assume for a moment that they are protected in legislation. We know the legislation has been contested. I am concerned that if a religious group denies a request to perform a service then another challenge will come and we begin again.

The attorney general of British Columbia also had some concerns. An article in the Vancouver Sun on February 3, 2005, states:

Polygamy law vulnerable to legal challenge: Plant: B.C.'s attorney-general....

The article goes on to state, “'Canada's law prohibiting polygamy is vulnerable to a legal challenge and could be struck down because of conflicts with religious freedoms', says B.C. Attorney General Geoff Plant”.

Today we are bringing forth legislation to defend, under the charter, minority rights. What is to stop anybody in the future from saying that his or her rights are being infringed upon? And, of course, we will have a challenge.

If we were to look back 15, 20, 30 years ago we would see that certain initiatives were against the law. It was against the law In the United States to be a homosexual or a lesbian. Who can say that down the road this again will be challenged in the courts and somehow a different ruling will be brought forward?

We do want to protect all Canadians. I am very proud of the Prime Minister for having given us a free vote. However the numbers on the Liberal side are not enough to pass the legislation. I therefore send a challenge to the other parties, the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, to canvas their constituents, especially if we are here to represent our constituents on such issues where there is a free vote, and no matter what the response, yea or nay, they should then stand and be the voice of their constituents, whether they agree or disagree. Unfortunately, that has not happened.

I wanted to go on record to express my views, as I have in the past, and I wanted to bring these statistics forward. I encourage members of the Conservative Party to stop attacking the Prime Minister or the government on this issue. I encourage them to bring forward their views, their suggestions, their positions and to stick to that. This is not sparring across the floor. This is probably one of the most important issues that we have faced and that I have faced since I was first elected in 1993.

I am glad today that I am not expressing my view and my opinion only. I will be expressing the views and the opinions of the vast majority of the constituents of Scarborough Centre.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak today to the matter off Bill C-38. I have made it clear in the course of debate that I personally support the traditional definition of marriage as being one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Heterosexual marriage has a unique social purpose that other relationships simply do not share. This statement is based on information that the justice committee heard last year, describing the functions of marriage as a heterosexual institution in various contexts, legal, economic, social anthropological and historical. To fundamentally alter the nature and the function of heterosexual marriage is something that is simply not supported by the evidence.

We can all agree that the societal shifts that will results from the statutory recognition of marriage between two people of the same sex are potentially enormous. Even the most strident proponents of same sex marriage have acknowledged as much. As McGill scholar, Dr. Daniel Cere said in his committee testimony:

The proposal to delete heterosexuality from the definition of marriage will change the internal meaning of this institution...will inevitably affect the identity of those who are shaped and sustained by this institution.

Dr. Cere cautioned the committee in proceeding with the legislation for several reasons, but as an academic, Dr. Cere made the following point:

It seems odd for jurists to be forging ahead with legal reconfigurations of marriage at such an early stage of debate. In the academy there has been little in the way of substantive response to this new body of argumentation and advocacy. Critical evaluation will eventually come, but perhaps too late as courts and legislatures are pushed to move.

Recent polling numbers from multiple national polling firms suggest that two-thirds of Canadians do not support redefining traditional marriage. The same Canadians however do, for the most part, support the legal recognition of same sex unions. This is precisely the reasonable compromise position that the Leader of the Opposition and the Conservative Party have taken. Yet the Prime Minister continues to attack our leader and our party, suggesting that somehow our refusal to endorse the government position is un-Canadian.

The current Liberal argument that this is purely a matter of human rights is, at best, one side of a legal opinion and, at worst, a cynical attempt to intimidate Canadians into supporting the government's legislation. For some to imply that those who believe otherwise are somehow not worthy of participating in the debate is an insult to Canadians and to Canadian values.

By refusing to appeal the lower court decisions on same sex marriage, the Liberal government irresponsibly set up the stage for the domino effect of the subsequent lower court rulings and the patchwork of laws currently in place across the country.

The strategy of the Prime Minister was clear. His strategy was simply to get the marriage question off the agenda during last year's election. However, his secondary strategy of asking the appointed judiciary to determine the future of marriage in Canada and therefore allow the Liberal Party to escape political responsibility for their policy choice in this respect was a decided failure.

Last December, the issue of marriage was unceremoniously dumped back into the lap of the government. The Supreme Court of Canada refused to be played for a political fool on this issue and refused to declare the traditional definition of marriage unconstitutional. While Liberal MPs continue to perpetuate the myth that the Supreme Court has ruled on the constitutionality of traditional marriage, it quite clearly has done no such thing.

Because the Supreme Court of Canada has not ruled that the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional, there is no need to use the notwithstanding clause to override any such decision. Therefore, the Conservative Party intends to legislate, for the first time, the traditional definition of marriage and, at the same time, move to provide legal recognition for those in same sex unions. This will be done on the basis of a free vote, unlike the broken promise of the Prime Minister.

However, what if there is a majority of members in the House who mistakenly vote to change the definition of marriage? We in the Conservative Party are committed to bringing forward amendments to protect religious freedom insofar as it is possible from the perspective of federal legislation.

One issue that must be addressed is the fact that the Minister of Justice has simply recycled an unconstitutional provision to protect religious freedom. Let me be perfectly clear. There are absolutely no legal protections in the bill for freedom of religion or freedom of conscience. Whether this provision was intended to be simply declaratory or not, the one thing that the Supreme Court of Canada has been absolutely clear about in the reference is that the provision that the Liberals are putting into the bill is unconstitutional beyond the jurisdiction of the federal government to enact.

The Prime Minister continues to promise that he will invoke the notwithstanding clause to protect religious freedom for clergy. The notwithstanding clause cannot be used to give the federal government authority to legislate in provincial matters where it has no such authority. Again, another empty promise by the Prime Minister.

On three counts, the government has sought to mislead Canadian citizens. First, that the Supreme Court of Canada has in fact determined the definition of marriage when it has done no such thing. Second, it has also misled Canadians on the fact that the provision on religious freedom protects religious freedoms. Third, the Prime Minister has misled Canadians in saying that he will use the notwithstanding clause to protect religious freedoms when he in fact knows that it is beyond his jurisdiction to do that.

This is all in the context of the Deputy Prime Minister along with the Prime Minister, the former prime minister, the former minister of justice who initiated this legislation and the majority of the Liberal caucus all voted in 1999 in favour of taking all necessary steps to retain the traditional definition of marriage. Yet they did not even take the minimum steps necessary to appeal the decision. They have broken their word to Canadians in the past and there is no reason to believe on their past record that they will take any steps to protect religious freedom in this country.

As I have stated before on previous occasions, while there are individual exceptions, there has been a consistent pattern of equality rights prevailing over the rights of religious freedom and conscience, both in charter cases and cases brought before human rights tribunals. Furthermore, this proposed change is continuing to have a chilling effect on the exercise of religious freedom in the country.

Last month I received an e-mail from a person who conducts a marriage class as part of a church organization. This person was frightened to put the course on because if she advertised the course in the community as a course on marriage, given that the church's position was in support of the traditional definition of marriage, she feared the church would be brought in front of the Human Rights Commission if the course did not admit a homosexual couple. Given the current human rights decisions in this country, she is absolutely right in her concern.

Provided that the exercise of religious freedom remains within the four corners of the church and its immediate membership, then we could have religious freedom in the country, that is if we remain in a religious ghetto. However, if there is a broader appeal to the community, then we are in danger of running afoul of our human rights laws.

For the government to suggest that somehow, as its ministers have done, that those with religious beliefs or that religious organizations have no place in social policy debates, reflects a disturbing trend that is not dissimilar from the totalitarian regimes that many Canadians and their families fled in coming to this country.

I recall specifically the statement of the Minister of Foreign Affairs who basically said that there was no place for the church and religious organizations in the public debate on same sex marriage. This is simply unacceptable. The concept of the separation of church and state is to protect religion, not to allow the state to coerce religious organizations.

I ask members to think very clearly and carefully about this bill that poses so many dangers and risks to the real practice of freedom and real human rights in this country.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that the members of the Conservative Party are not interested in hearing any points of view that might differ from their own on Bill C-38. I am, however, pleased that a few Liberals and Bloc members are.

I was at the point of talking about how my parents were an interracial couple. My father asked me whether I had thought carefully and deeply about the fact of wanting to marry a white man. That brought home to me the kind of discrimination that my parents would have faced through their years of marriage until my mother's death.

It also brought home to me the fact there was discrimination and discrimination not just based on an individual's race, but that the discrimination could be against a couple either because they did not share religious background or because they did not share the same ethnic or racial origin, in some cases even because they did not share the same linguistic heritage.

It was the first time in my life, and I was 22 years old at the time, that I realized the kind of pain that my parents must have experienced as an interracial couple in Canada in the Montreal area throughout their years of courtship, then marriage and raising a family of eight children.

I married my husband. We will be celebrating 31 years of marriage this June. I must say that in the first years of our marriage we did in fact encounter some barriers because we were an interracial couple. It was quite astonishing that it happened in the area of rental property. I went to seek an apartment and informed the owner that I was married and that my husband was not available to come to look at it. That was not a problem, it was available, it was open. I was told to come back that evening with my husband and we could sign the lease. When I showed up with my white husband, all of a sudden the apartment was rented. They had no problem with renting to another couple of another race as long as both members of the couple were of the same race.

The reason why I bring this up is because I want to speak to Canadians who are listening. I am not even going to talk to the members in the House because I believe that all of the members of the House have done their homework and have made up their minds whether to support or not to support Bill C-38. However, there are many Canadians who are watching who may not have made up their minds. Some have, but some have not.

I want Canadians to think about the impact of discrimination and exclusion on the life of an individual and on the life of a couple. I want to read two letters before I go to my main speech. The first letter was published in the National Post on Tuesday, March 8. It states:

I wonder if those fighting so hard against same-sex marriage ever consider how much it means to gays. They don't know what it's like to be a teenager -- when the pressure to conform is so great -- and you experience the horror of realizing that you are gay. They can't understand what it's like to listen to your friends talk about how they hate queers and how they wish they were dead. You consider suicide, because you never want anyone to find out the truth about yourself; your shame is too great to bear.

And these people can't understand the hope that filled my soul when I first found out that Canada was considering allowing same-sex marriage. This legislation goes so far beyond marriage. It is a symbol. It represents the hopes and dreams of gays for a better world. Now that I'm 18, I can finally admit to myself that I am gay and no longer feel the shame that almost drew me suicide. At least now I have hope. What I can't understand is how people like Father de Souza, who are supposed to be in the business of giving people hope, are so determined to crush it.

Jason Reede, Toronto.

I have another letter which is addressed to me. It is from one of my constituents. It states:

Do you realize how much traditional marriage means to so many Canadians? Do you realize how much your decision affects our future? As a 17yr old Canadian Citizen, I urge you to support traditional marriage and listen to your conscience. VOTE NO!

Sincerely,

Andrea Cowie.

As have many members of the House, I have received thousands of e-mails, faxes, letters, and telephone calls on both sides of issue. Yes, I am going to vote with my conscience and I am going to vote in favour of Bill C-38.

Even if this House has heard some speeches, arguments and heartfelt personal opinions, both for and against same sex marriage, we have very little factual information on this subject, and there is a reason for that.

Until very recently, our society marginalized same sex partners to such an extent that they often lived secret and almost invisible lives. That does not mean that they did not exist in Canada and elsewhere. Gays and lesbians, and same sex couples are an integral party of our history, but since they were not socially accepted, particularly from the Victorian era on, an atmosphere was created that was so hostile as to force many gays and lesbians to keep a very low profile.

Fortunately, society's attitudes toward gays and lesbians are changing, here in Canada especially. What is more, many Canadian gays and lesbians are of such strong character that they are prepared to acknowledge their sexual orientation publicly. I would like to point out, in fact, that there is probably not a single member of this House who has not at some point been touched and impressed by the courage of a family member, friend, colleague or neighbour who has publicly acknowledged his or her sexual orientation publicly and the desire to be accepted as a person,and even as a member of a couple.

Not that long ago, being gay or lesbian was considered a shameful secret that had to be concealed from one's parents, relatives and friends. The fact that a son or daughter, brother or sister was gay had to be kept from family and friends.

The previous discrimination, some of which still exists today, of exclusion for gays and lesbians was not accepted. Happily, our society has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Under this Charter of Rights and Freedoms, our courts have said that the traditional definition of marriage goes against our charter. It is the civil definition of marriage. We are not talking about religious marriage.

I would urge the members of the House to vote in favour of Bill C-38 and to let our gays and lesbians of Canada know that the institution of civil marriage is as open to them as it is to heterosexual Canadians.

Message from the Senate

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is quite clear that different provinces and territories are entitled to and will take different positions on this issue, as they do with many others.

The bottom line is that the government has no intention of intruding into matters of provincial jurisdiction. Frankly, I am quite shocked to hear the member opposite suggest that we should be forcing a sister government to do anything that is within its exclusive power to decide for itself even where we may respectfully disagree with its approach.

As I mentioned, I am concerned that the specific cases, such as civil marriage officials, are being taken out of context and used to alarm religious groups into believing that Bill C-38 should not proceed because the government cannot assure religious freedom. That is simply not the case.

The Supreme Court has clearly supported the position of the government that the charter continues to protect freedom of religious officials and groups who oppose same sex marriage.

Civil marriage officials already have the potential for conflicts with their religious beliefs. For example, in situations where the marriage involves a divorced person, first cousins or interfaith couples, each of which is forbidden by some religious beliefs, in these situations a solution has been found before. I am confident that our provincial and territorial colleagues will find one now.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, the member first asked this question on December 3 last year, just as the government was anticipating the release of the decision from the Supreme Court of Canada on the marriage reference.

I would like to remind the House that the government takes the issue of religious freedom very seriously. Indeed, as the House will recall, the Government of Canada was very concerned that the granting of equality to same sex couples should not come at the expense of other charter protected guaranteed rights and freedoms, such as the freedom of religion. It was for that reason that the government chose to refer its proposed legislation to the Supreme Court of Canada before tabling it in Parliament, so that our opinion that the bill would not affect religious freedom could be confirmed by the highest court in the land.

The Supreme Court released its decision on December 9 of last year and confirmed that the charter already protects the religious freedom of all Canadians. In its ruling, the Supreme Court made some of the strongest statements ever on the nature and importance of religious freedom in Canada. Specifically, the court clearly ruled that: religious officials are protected by the charter from being compelled to perform any religious or civil marriage that would be contrary to their religious beliefs; and religious institutions are protected from being forced to provide their sacred spaces.

The Supreme Court was categorical: the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms already protects the freedom of religion. The charter protects churches and synagogues, mosques and temples from being obliged to perform marriages contrary to their beliefs.

This protection is clearly echoed in the draft bill to extend civil marriage to same sex couples. Indeed, the crystal clear assurances of religious freedom are one of the major reasons that I personally support Bill C-38.

At the same time, I am concerned that some may be seeking to unduly alarm Canadians by confusing the question of civil commissioners with that of religious officials performing marriages. The two issues are qualitatively different. Religious officials are protected by the charter from doing anything that would be against their religious beliefs. Civil marriage officials are provincial or territorial employees or appointees hired to perform a service that the provinces and territories are required under the law to provide to all without discrimination.

As provincial employees, civil marriage officials are not within federal jurisdiction but would fall within provincial or territorial jurisdiction. As I understand that there is currently a case on this issue before the provincial human rights body, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on that specific situation in Manitoba.

In general terms, however, if any additional specific protections for religious freedom are desired in the terms of civic marriage officials, commercial provision of services, hall rentals, et cetera, they must be made by the provinces and territories.

Even here, at a recent FPT meeting, the attorneys general of two of the most populous provinces, Ontario and Quebec, both said that they had experienced no problems with religious freedom despite thousands of same sex marriage ceremonies.

Many provinces and territories already have amended their laws to add specific protections for religious freedom. In a recent FPT meeting, the Minister of Justice encouraged the provinces and territories to ensure, as the federal government is doing, religious freedom is protected in all their laws.

Petitions

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to present a petition on behalf of some of my constituents of Prince George—Peace River, specifically some of the residents in the cities of Dawson Creek, Fort St. John and the smaller rural communities of Charlie Lake, Rose Prairie, Taylor, Baldonnel and Pink Mountain.

These petitioners, like so many thousands and hundreds of thousands before them from all across the nation, wish to draw to the attention of the House that marriage is the best foundation for families and the raising of children. They note that the institution of marriage as being between a man and a woman is being challenged by the government's legislation, Bill C-38.

Therefore they call upon Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Civil Marriage Act

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me as well to have these few minutes to speak on this matter, which could well be called a highly sensitive one. That is why the debate must be carried out with respect to all in this House. Personal attacks against certain members, or ministers, such as we have just heard, are not necessary. They are, moreover, excessive, since there will be parliamentarians of all parties in this House who will be on opposite sides with colleagues in their own party. This is an essential point that must not be lost sight of in this debate.

I will state my background. I have been married for 34 years. I am a grandfather. My wife Mary Ann is known to most of my colleagues here in this House. I am a practising Roman Catholic living in a francophone rural community. I intend to vote in favour of this bill. That will perhaps surprise some people, but that is too bad.

In my view this is a question of rights. These rights have been established and defined by the courts. Some criticize the Deputy Prime Minister, saying that as Minister of Justice she said one thing before the court gave its ruling and then said another after the court gave its ruling. Obviously, the judgment of a court has changed the definitions. Otherwise, we probably would not be having this debate. That is clear.

There is no need to attack colleagues because of what has happened. Instead, we must talk about our vision and what each and every one of us thinks is the best option for the future in this matter.

That is why I am speaking today. Is it a question of changing the definition of marriage in my province? Not at all. Same sex partners are getting married today, they got married yesterday and they will get married next week. It will change nothing in my province. In seven provinces and one territory in Canada, nothing will change. It is an existing practice.

Did those who have just made partisan comments mention that this will not affect these provinces and this territory? It is as though we were setting out to redefine something that did not exist before today, but that is not true.

Since this decision has come down I have received marriage invitations in my own constituency from people of the same sex. However I have not attended because I am not ready for that. I do not know if I ever will be but that is another matter. It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with what the courts have decided is a fundamental right, which is why we are here.

Many years ago the courts in this country decided on other issues of rights. Yes, as the member said, the Supreme Court made decisions. I am glad the hon. member across heckled that because I want to refer to the persons case where in fact the Supreme Court had decided against. The issue was appealed to the judiciary committee of the Privy Council at the time which reversed the decision of the Supreme Court and decided that in terms of the British North America Act a woman was a person. The question was: why not? That was the decision that was given at that time.

Once that decision was rendered in 1931, did we ask ourselves the question: Does a majority of the people agree with the decision taken before we decide to put it into effect? Or, more appropriately put: Did the majority of the men, who were the only ones who counted, agree because prior to that presumably women were not persons? Were they somehow polled? Did we receive petitions? Did we decide in that way before determining whether the fundamental right that had been decided upon was going to proceed? Of course not.

At the beginning of my remarks I said that I have been married for 34 years to my wife Mary Ann. I wonder, if in 1931 the House had decided not to respect that decision that was handed down at the time, whether my wife Mary Ann would have the same rights today as I do. Would my daughter Julie, who worked here on Parliament Hill, and many of my colleagues on this side of the House and on the other side know as well, have the same rights as I do?

I think the answer is clear. I am quite certain that if they would have achieved that equality it certainly would not have occurred at that point. It would have taken longer if at all. We know that is the answer.

This has nothing to do with whether I like the decision that was handed down by the court. We vote on many things that we like and we vote on many things that we do not like. The issue is not whether we like it. It is whether it is right, which is why this issue is so important. It is important for us not to spend our time attacking each other but to talk about the importance of the issue.

Notwithstanding my background and notwithstanding everything else, I made the decision to take this opportunity to say where I come from on this issue. It may be from a totally different vantage point than many other members. It is for a totally different reason perhaps some would argue, but I hope at least that my rationale is valid. I say to the House that all of us have to look at it that way.

Yes, I have received letters, some nice, some no so nice and some threatening on both sides perhaps, although clearly more threatening with one particular point of view. I have seen all of this over recent months. I have seen attempts to plug up the e-mails in my office with thousands of them on one day, as if that would be a determining issue as to what are rights. Are rights determined by those who can plug up our e-mail? Is that the way in which we are going to govern this great country? Is that the way in which we have done it in the past?

I want to hear my colleagues tell me about the use of the notwithstanding clause in all of this. That is important.

Many same sex partners are already married. If we were to vote against Bill C-38, we would presumably not want them to have that right, which is already available in the province where I live. Are we going to unmarry those people, and by what process? If it is the position of some hon. members that it is wrong, then surely the ones who are married now are in the wrong. How are we going to revoke that? Do we use the notwithstanding clause?

I do not know whether I will ever vote in favour of using the notwithstanding clause for anything. The day that I do, I hope it will never be to revoke the rights from those who have received those rights by the courts of this great country. That is not where I stand. It will never happen that way as long as I have anything to do with it and as long as the people of Glengarry--Prescott--Russell decide that I am the person who should be here to represent them in the House.

Sooner or later we will all belong to some group or some minority. Somehow we will all be in that kind of situation. If we start revoking the rights of minorities, then the question we must ask ourselves is: who is next? Sooner or later it will be every one of us and every one of those we love and care for. Let us not do that. Let us stand up for what is right. For my part, I believe, respectfully, that what is right is to vote for Bill C-38.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, with respect to Bill C-38, the Prime Minister has one thing right, that is, at stake is the kind of nation we are today and the kind of nation we want to be.

The legislation invites Canadians to go down a road they do not wish to travel and to accept as a nation a fundamental change to the traditional definition of marriage, a change the majority of Canadians do not wish or choose to accept. This does not bode well for Canada.

The Prime Minister does not wish to submit this issue to a referendum and he does not care what the majority of Canadians think or feel, but should the bill succeed, it will happen whether he likes it or not: at the ballot box in the next election. The issue is too big and too important for the justice minister, the Prime Minister and his enforcers to decide. It will be decided ultimately by the people of Canada, ordinary men and women who believe in the traditional definition of marriage.

Although our liberal courts and the Liberal Party of Canada would like to describe this as a rights issue, an equality issue or a dignity issue, it is not. If anyone is confused on this issue, it is the Prime Minister himself.

It is amazing when there are no guiding fundamental principles in play how, one step at a time, one can come to a place of confusion. Who would have thought just a few years ago that we would be having the debate we are having today? Even the then justice minister, Anne McLellan, had stated as late as 1999--

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Madam Speaker, listening to some of the members speak to the bill reminds me of that old statement, “If you stand for everything, you actually stand for nothing”.

The debate on Bill C-38 is vitally important because of the huge consequences it would have for Canadian society. The definition of marriage is a social issue as opposed to a rights issue and, therefore, is a matter for Parliament and parliamentarians to decide.

The Minister of State for Multiculturalism, the member for Richmond in British Columbia, assured the electorate in the 2004 election that he would defend the traditional definition of marriage at all costs. The member won the 1997 election and then lost in 2000 because he had lost touch with his constituents.

The riding of Richmond is very multicultural, with a majority of ethnic Chinese who believe strongly in traditional marriage. This legislation places the minister in a pickle. The Prime Minister is now telling him that he must vote with cabinet and oppose the traditional definition of marriage.

If the member for Richmond has any principles he will resign from cabinet. If the Prime Minister has any principles he will free his cabinet to vote their conscience.

The member for Richmond has been silent in the House of Commons and is marginalized if he continues to dither. His weakness will grow daily in the face of strong constituency opposition to the Liberal government position on marriage.

The bill has virtually no chance of passing the House of Commons if cabinet is free to vote their conscience.

For a member, such as the member for Richmond, to value the perks of office more than defending what he and his constituents profess to believe is unconscionable. He could do a huge public service and break the log-jam of cabinet discipline that is being used to pre-empt the public will.

I will be the first of many to congratulate the member if he makes this choice and I will have zero respect if he does not. He has already waited longer than prudence would dictate.

The vast majority of new Canadians support rights, multiculturalism, the charter and the traditional definition of marriage. Bill C-38 makes no attempt to accommodate their values. The Liberal government is proposing to remove the traditional definition of marriage and labelling it a violation of human rights. This is a threat to religious freedoms and multicultural values enshrined in the charter.

I have had several opportunities to present petitions in the House calling on Parliament to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. On February 25, I presented 7,000 signatures collected by the Canadian Alliance for Social Justice and Family Values Association. This was in addition to the 22,000 signatures I presented earlier from this same group. This Vancouver based group, with the majority of their members drawn from the ethnic Chinese community, collected 29,000 signatures asking Parliament to protect and preserve the current definition of marriage. Many of the petitioners are in the riding of the member for Richmond.

I do not believe that Bill C-38 is a necessary piece of legislation. I have supported and I will continue to support the traditional definition of marriage. In this position I have been successfully consistent through four general elections. What the Liberal government is practising is a charade.

While the CPC as the official opposition is allowing and encouraging a free vote on this issue, the Prime Minister is insisting on cabinet support for the bill. This is adding to the democratic deficit which the Prime Minister once promised to abolish. Instead, he now owns it.

The Prime Minister misled Parliament on missile defence when he said that no decision had been made when it had already been made and communicated to the U.S. administration. The Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Defence added their weight despite knowing to the contrary. The Prime Minister now owns the democratic deficit. It is time for the Liberal cabinet to be urged to vote freely on this matter of personal conscience.

I believe there are people of goodwill on both sides of this issue. It is also my belief that any government action that directly affects this institution should, first, only be done with the clear and overwhelming support of Canadian society, and second, should seek to have minimal impact on the institution to avoid unintended consequences.

From the volume of correspondence I have received on Bill C-38, it is clear to me that there is no consensus in Canada for this drastic societal change to be made. The majority of correspondents, certainly from my constituency, are strongly opposed to the legislation.

The bill would profoundly affect the institution of marriage and Canadian families by changing the very definition of the relationship that is at the heart of both of these institutions. I am very concerned about the possible unintended consequences of this drastic social change: first, that the institution of marriage and, by extension, the family, could be weakened by the bill; and second, that religious freedoms could be infringed upon.

My fear is that tampering with the long held definition would weaken the institutional framework that supports the traditional family and the raising of children. When marriage is valued, it is an institution in which parental couples will sacrifice their personal situation for their children. When the institution of marriage is not valued in this way, one or more of the parents are more ready to abandon their responsibilities.

The special nature of marriage has proven over time that it is a cultural value that should not be dismissed due to court decisions in the absence of a federal statute defining marriage.

The issue at hand is not the Charter of Rights. It is Bill C-38. The only court that can definitively rule on the constitutionality of the traditional definition of marriage is the Supreme Court and it has not done so. The Supreme Court has explicitly refused to rule on the constitutionality of traditional marriage and has given the matter back to Parliament. This is a matter that ought to be debated and decided in Parliament, not in the courts.

The legislative vacuum on this issue has caused confusion and has forced the courts to rule without the guidance of Parliament.

Instead of hyperbolic statements about absolute rights, the House should try to find a moderate approach. This is the approach that the Conservative Party leader and much of the Conservative caucus are pursuing. We can find a balanced approach that would recognize same sex unions with rights and benefits due that relationship but still protects the traditional definition of marriage. The majority of Canadians can and do support this approach. Granting all the legal rights and benefits to same sex partnerships that the government grants to married heterosexual couples represents a middle position, a position that is in contrast to Bill C-38.

In 1999 the Deputy Prime Minister said in the House:

I fundamentally do not believe that it is necessary to change the definition of marriage in order to accommodate the equality issues around same sex partners which now face us as Canadians.

She has betrayed this statement by her subsequent actions. Parliament is as free today as it was in 1999 to preserve the traditional definition of marriage while accommodating the demand for equality by same sex partners.

[Michael John Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this important bill, the civil marriage act, here in Parliament where so many other historic debates have taken place in years past.

Many members have spoken about how difficult this decision has been for them and how much difficulty they have had during this process of discussion. This debate has occurred in many places, in our communities, our churches and our families. Now it takes place where it should, in Parliament, where legislation is subjected to its most legitimate and democratic test.

I was asked recently if I wished that the legislation, as emotional as it is, could have been avoided, and I said no. We do not stand for election to this historic and important place in order to make easy decisions, but to debate and decide those that most matter to Canadians. We come to this place to discuss difficult issues, to debate the merits, to make decisions and to make law.

In my view this is a law whose time has come. I am pleased to tell members why I feel this way, as I have discussed this with my constituents back home. For me, the discussion revolves around two basic principles. The first is the issue of justice and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The second is an issue of personal faith.

First, our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is something of which Canadians are justifiably proud. It guarantees that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. I believe this bill follows that principle. I believe anything less than the right to marriage and the right to use the name marriage would be unlawful and would be unjust.

I also believe that it is right to protect religious freedoms and the bill clearly does that. How much clearer can it get than clause 3 of the act where it says:

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

I cannot imagine why that would be anything but clear in its protection of the rights of churches, synagogues, mosques and temples to choose whether or not to sanctify marriage. As well, the Supreme Court of Canada has indicated very clearly that Parliament must create uniformity of law across the country. This follows the precedent of eight other jurisdictions in Canada that provide equal access by same sex couples to civil marriage.

From the point of view of justice and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the answer is clear. This is a law whose time has come. I support the legislation because I think it is right and because it is both just and moral. It is consistent with both the Charter of Rights and with my own personal faith.

That is not to say that the issue has been without difficulty. Many people whom I respect greatly oppose my view, some in particularly strong terms. Though my view has never changed, I have struggled to find the words to express my strong support for the legislation. I found them in the words of Dr. Peter Short, the moderator of the United Church of Canada. He has expressed that the legislation does not represent an abandoning of faith, but rather an embracement of faith. He further reminds us that the literal interpretation of scripture has been used to justify actions that none of us would advocate: slavery, apartheid and the repression of women.

From my own faith, I take heart in the notion of informed conscience, that as Catholics we need to combine the teachings of the word with our own objective judgments and make wise decisions. This concept have been the tenet of many lives, including my late parents, of people who have made this world a better place. There are many people of faith who feel differently, but there are many who feel as I do and have indicated it to me. It does reinforce the importance of religious protections so clearly delineated in the bill.

I have had many telephone calls, written exchanges and visits with people who feel differently. I respect their right to their opinions and have in fact come to understand some new views of my own. I recall a meeting with a Baptist minister who strongly opposed my view but with whom I was honoured to share a prayer in my office, and I thank him for that privilege.

I must confess though that there is one concept with which I am simply unable to identify. That is the concept that extension of marriage rights to gays and lesbians diminishes marriage rights to others. I simply do not think or believe that the extension of rights to others diminishes our own. Why would it?

Why is it acceptable for those in our society who have committed the most egregious crimes against children, men who abuse their wives, murderers, war criminals and terrorists, that they can be married without diminishing the institution of marriage but gays and lesbians cannot? It does not make sense. Likewise, the idea that same sex couples cannot be a family is absolutely wrong.

There is much rhetoric on both sides of this argument. There are some who say that same sex couples are in fact better parents, more loving, understanding and more sensitive. I would simply suggest that there are both good and bad parents who are both homosexual and heterosexual.

I happen to be the godfather to a little girl who has two mothers. I can simply say without any fear of contradiction that no one would be better parents to Emily and her sister Rosie than her parents Jane and Vicki. They are a family in every respect and deserve to be recognized by their country and their fellow citizens as the family they are.

On every level, legal, personal experience, personal faith and family, I believe this is the right thing. It sits comfortably in both my head and my heart.

It does however leave one issue that troubles some people. Am I here to reflect my own views or reflect the majority view of my constituency? Leaving aside the fact that there is no clear way to know for certain the accurate view of my constituents short of a referendum on this issue, would it be appropriate for me to vote according to the majority view?

I have a responsibility to consult with my constituents actively and openly. I have done this and I will continue to do this. However at the end of the day I need to make a decision that I believe to be right and I will. I suspect it will cost me votes.

The only polling I have seen on this subject indicates feelings are mixed in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour on civil marriage, but those who oppose the bill are probably more inclined to vote against me rather than the reverse. This is democracy and I fully accept that fact.

However the fundamental issue of importance to me is that human rights and equality of minorities cannot be left to majority favour. Over the years, minority groups of every faith, race and sex have suffered at the hands of majorities. The fundamental principle of equality is the protection and even the enhancement of minority recognition and rights.

I support Bill C-38 for those reasons. I believe a time will soon come when we will look back on this debate with great national pride. The evolution of social justice, however, is seldom easy. I have respect for those who are uneasy with this legislation and I certainly hold no ill feelings.

I thank all my constituents who have expressed opinions. Nothing is more democratic or important. However the legislation passes every test for me, legally, morally and ethically. It affirms our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It supports issues of equality and, most important, it feels right in my heart. This is a law whose time has come.

I support the legislation as introduced by the government.

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

Madam Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Kildonan—St. Paul I will be voting against the Liberal Bill C-38.

The bill was introduced by the Liberal government for the sole purpose of redefining marriage. My constituents in Kildonan—St. Paul have told me, by way of over 14,000 faxes, e-mails and feedback sheets I sent out, that the definition of marriage should remain between a man and a woman, excluding all others. These responses have come from people from all walks of life, all religions and all cultures.

Out of all these factions there have been only 20 constituents who differed in that opinion in this matter. Never in the history of Kildonan—St. Paul have the people responded so clearly, so vigorously and in such a concerned way.

As their elected representative, I have heard their concerns and I stand in the House of Commons today to voice my concerns on their behalf. I ask the government, why, after defending the definition of marriage just a few short months ago, did it flip-flop and bring forth a bill that the majority of Canadians did not want? Why did the Prime Minister refuse to hold a referendum on the issue? Why did he refuse to go to the Canadian public and hear their concerns?

In 1999 the Prime Minister promised to use all necessary means to defend the traditional definition of marriage. That was only five years ago. The Prime Minister is in his latter sixties. He has believed in this concept for approximately seven decades. This is a curious time in life for anyone to change his or her mind on such a critical social issue as redefining the definition of marriage. What is the motivation for this? I believe Canadians need an answer to the question.

The Liberal government was elected because the Canadian public remembered what the Prime Minister said in 1999. They believed him. At the same the current Deputy Prime Minister also stated that the government had no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages. How can the Canadian public trust the government?

Before the last election there was not a word of this to the public. Clearly the government was elected under false pretences. Again, I ask the question, what the government's motive is for this? Why is it being pushed through without going to the Canadian public first? Does it take the public eye away from the sponsorship scandal and the Gomery commission? I would say, indeed it does.

A well known political trick is to bring forth legislation that diverts the public's eyes from the ongoing daily stories coming from any other controversial issue about which the government is not keen on having the public hear. It is a diversion tactic with a far-reaching impact on the Canadian public. The findings from these hearings have been virtually pushed back in the public media and Bill C-38 has taken over the story of the day. The government has succeeded in what it is trying to do. It is a shame because the ongoing sponsorship scandal has proven to be even worse than we first thought. The story will come out.

Canadians are beginning to see that there is a difference between the current Liberal government and its opposition, the Conservative Party of Canada. The Conservative Party of Canada believes in a democratic society and the right of every individual to have choices. The Conservative Party believes that each individual has the right to choose what lifestyle that individual wants with all the equivalent rights and benefits that go along with it. The Conservative Party of Canada believes each individual has the right to choose a religion or not choose a religion. The Conservative Party of Canada believes each individual has the right to freedom of speech and respects the rights of all people.

The leader of the Conservative Party of Canada has taken a responsible, compromise position which is in accord with the views of the vast majority of Canadians. The option to retain the traditional definition of marriage along with the legal recognition of same sex partnerships with equivalent rights and benefits represents the middle ground position that allows for democracy to grow and flourish in our great nation. This issue is an important matter of social society on which Parliament should have the final say because parliamentarians are mandated to reflect the wishes of their constituents.

Since the changing of the definition of marriage is a matter of personal conscience, all Conservative Party members will have a free vote on this question. The courts have never ruled on legislation of the type we propose, which would ensure equal rights and privileges for same sex partners while affording the traditional definition of marriage. This is not only a moderate position, but a reflection of the democratic society Canadians have enjoyed over the decades. It is a moderate position, one that is supported by citizens across our nation.

There is nothing moderate or reasoned or democratic about the Liberal position. The definition of marriage is a question of social policy as opposed to a rights issue and, as such, is a matter for Parliament to decide. We do not believe that supporting the traditional definition of marriage is an infringement on anyone's rights. If we legislate the traditional definition of marriage along with equal rights and benefits for same sex partnerships it is a reasonable compromise. The Prime Minister does not get to decide if same sex marriage is a fundamental right. The Canadian people decide.

The Supreme Court has refused to answer whether the definition of marriage is constitutional. In doing so, the court has decided that this is a matter for Parliament, which represents the Canadian people, to decide.

No wonder the current Prime Minister is confused. He has so many irons in the fire and so many fires to put out that he neglects the issues of health care, crime and taxation and seems to be driven to distraction. Clearly his need to travel the world and seek out photo ops has garnered him the opportunity not to face questions in question period.

In past Canadian history the law usually reflected the social consensus within our society. Since the last election, the agenda has changed. The law is being used now as an instrument for social engineering by the Liberal government. The government has presented a bill that has no protections for religious freedoms in relation to income tax and charitable status, even though the Prime Minister has promised to protect religious freedom.

The Prime Minister is using the law now as an instrument for social engineering. He knows very well that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled already that the provision in the draft legislation pertaining to the rights of religious officials to refuse to perform marriages is outside the jurisdiction of the federal Parliament.

Until now there has been no federal statute defining marriage, democratically passed by Parliament, for the courts to deal with. Therefore, all the decisions that have taken place have been in a legislative vacuum. By filling the legislative vacuum, we would be providing Parliament's guidance to the courts about this matter of social policy.

The Prime Minister will not hold a referendum. Calls for a referendum stem from the feeling Canadians have been left out of this debate. The Supreme Court has left the matter for Parliament to decide. The majority of the Liberal members of Parliament are voting against the traditional definition of marriage and are supporting Bill C-38.

On our side of the House, we are allowed a free vote so we can vote according to the wishes of our constituents and according to our consciences. Unlike members opposite, our leader firmly believes in the democratic process and in the right of the individual to choose. Democracy is all about that. This is Canada.

I will be voting against Bill C-38.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to take part in the historic debate on Bill C-38, an issue that, to a certain degree, has polarized our nation.

Bill C-38, an act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes, has evoked many emotions. I understand the sensitivity and complexity of the issue. Therefore, I will base my position in such a fashion that it will be respectful to all the parties involved.

However, let me be crystal clear that I support Bill C-38 based on the premise that it is a charter issue; an issue that protects freedom of religion and also extends civil liberties under the equality provision of the charter.

Let me begin by addressing the role of religion in this debate. We live in a secular society where the state and religious institutions are separated. What makes Canada unique and the envy of the world is that we recognize the importance and the significance of religion that is reflected in our charter and is codified in section 2(a). The Supreme Court has declared unanimously:

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.

I want to take this opportunity to talk about my personal experiences with religion, specifically the Sikh faith.

As a proud Canadian born in Toronto and raised in Mississauga—Brampton South, I grew up in an environment where I never fit the status quo. At a young age I decided to keep my hair and recall the moral support provided by my school teachers. I remember playing soccer and feeling mortified because I was the only one with a turban. I thought my turban was going to fall off when I headed the soccer ball, but the coach always went out of her way to make me feel part of the team.

I remember the first time I wore my distar, also known as the turban, to high school and recall the compliments I received from my classmates. I also remember taking amrit in university, and being praised by my professors and the student body for making an outward commitment to practise my faith.

I share these experiences because it tells a story of a Canadian growing up in Canada during a time period when the charter was part of the Constitution. It is this charter that enabled me and so many others to follow our faith, and form an identity that today I can say with a great deal of pride is a strong part of the Canadian mosaic and fabric.

One would ask what the charter has to do with me practising my faith. Let me share one small example. I remember I was in high school and Mr. Dhillon was going through much undue hardship for wearing a turban and wanting to join the RCMP. I recall that Sikhs at that time came together and looked to the charter to protect their identity and, may I add, an identity that did not conform to traditional norms.

I also recall when the courts decided that Mr. Dhillon was allowed to wear his turban as an RCMP officer. At that moment, I was not only proud to be a Sikh but I was proud to be a Canadian, and live in a country where I was treated as an equal member of society, knowing full well that if my beliefs were ever challenged, I would have the charter to protect my rights.

Therefore, based on my experiences and historical decisions by the courts, I have full faith that the charter has demonstrated time and time again the importance of protecting religious freedoms.

The second component of the bill examines the enforcement of subsection 15(1), which indicates that everyone is equal before the law. The issue of equality under the law in Canada has been a constant struggle ever since Confederation. There are many examples of individuals and minority groups that have been regarded as citizens not fully worthy of equality under the law.

For example, women's groups had to fight relentlessly for the right to vote ever since they were excluded from voting at the time of Confederation. The first province to allow women to vote was Manitoba in 1916. It took two more years before women had the same right as men to vote in a federal election. Just imagine a society where women were not viewed as equal under the law. I cannot.

Aboriginal people were also excluded from the right to vote without condition until 1960. Technically they had the right to vote but only if they gave up their treaty rights and Indian status through a process that was defined as the Indian Act.

Today some have suggested the government extend gay and lesbian rights to civil unions. This would give some same sex couples many of the rights of a wedded couple, but their relationships would not legally be considered marriage. In other words, they would be equal but not as equal as the rest of us Canadians.

The courts have clearly and consistently ruled that this option would offend the equality provisions of the charter. For instance, the British Columbia Court of Appeal stated:

Marriage is the only road to true equality for same sex couples. Any other form of recognition of same sex relationships fall short of true equality.

We have three options here today: we could conduct a national referendum, we could use the notwithstanding clause, or we can uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Liberal Party, including myself, has been clear that we will not let the majority decide the right of minorities. We will not take away their rights, but we will extend civil liberties.

The issue today is not of civil marriage. The debate here today is not whether to change the definition of marriage. It is being changed in seven provinces and one territory. The issue is something much greater than that, the charter. I am a byproduct of the charter and live in a country where everyone is treated the same and where individual freedom is the cornerstone of our society.

I am reminded of a former Prime Minister who stated:

The Liberal philosophy places a highest value on the freedom of the individual, and the first consequence of freedom is change. A Liberal can seldom be part of the status quo.

It was the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau who made this statement over 30 years ago. I understand today, in the 21st century, we are confronted with a major consequence of freedom, change. As the former Prime Minister indicated, a Liberal can seldom be part of the status quo. Therefore, I stand here today to fight for freedom and respect change.

In closing, based on the fact that the issue today is to defend the charter, make no mistake about it. I will do everything in my capacity as an elected official to uphold the principles and the values laid out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[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.

[Rose-Marie Ur, Liberal, Middlesex—Kent—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate surrounding Bill C-38, the civil marriage act, that proposes to legalize same sex marriages in Canada.

Like many of my colleagues on both sides of the House, I voted in support of the traditional definition of marriage in 1999 and again in 2003. I remain committed to defending this definition, not only because of my personal beliefs but as the elected representative for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex I have an obligation to vote according to the views of the majority of my constituents.

Prior to the vote that took place in 2003, I sent a survey to every household in my riding. Of the responses I received, 90% of my constituents were opposed to same sex marriage.

Since the Supreme Court of Canada provided its opinion on the reference case, approximately 2,000 constituents have contacted my office to relay their continued opposition to same sex marriage, while less than 50 constituents have contacted me in support of the proposed legislation.

In 1999 the House of Commons reaffirmed the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others by a vote of 216 in support and 55 opposed. In 2003 another vote took place and this time 137 were opposed and 132 voted in support. The motion affirming the traditional definition of marriage was upheld in 1999, but was defeated in 2003.

Although I voted to support the traditional definition of marriage both in 1999 and 2003, many others switched their vote. The question I have is, what changed between 1999 and 2003? The answer is, the courts.

Several cases were brought before different provincial courts dealing with this issues, but the most notable was in July 2002, in Halpern v. Canada, in which the Ontario Superior Court challenged the traditional definition of marriage. This controversial judgment was followed by two similar decisions in Quebec Superior Court and the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

Halpern gave the federal government two years to consider legislative options. Before the federal government had an opportunity to complete public hearings on this issue, the Ontario Court of Appeal declared on June 10, 2003, that it would not bother to wait for the government. It struck down the existing law of marriage as discriminatory, redefining marriage as a union of two persons.

When the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was being created in 1981, some opponents saw the charter as a move to reallocate authority from those who attained their position through election to those who attained their position through appointment. The concern was that the power to define law and determine rights was being given to those who were immune to review by the people, the electorate. Since being implemented, the charter has sparked a lively debate over judicial encroachment on legislative authority. The most recent developments concerning same sex marriage is a perfect example of this intrusion.

As a result of these court rulings, a majority of Canadians are now being told that their view of the traditional definition of marriage is contrary to the charter. This pits the charter, which is meant to protect freedom of religion and conscience, against their consciences and indeed their religions on this fundamental matter.

Although the proposed legislation states that “officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs”, the Supreme Court of Canada included in its decision that religious freedoms would be protected, unless there were “unique circumstances with respect to which we will not speculate...” Where there is a collision of rights, the court has stated that it “will find a limit on religious freedom and go on to balance the interests at stake under Section 1 of the Charter”.

While the Supreme Court has stated that there is a level playing field of rights, that is, that no right is superior to another, the way the court has interpreted religious freedom and gay rights leaves gay rights in a superior position.

In the Trinity Western University case concerning religious freedoms, the court said that the freedom to believe was broader than the freedom to act on those beliefs. Respecting gay rights, however, the courts have ruled that protection for homosexual practices is part and parcel of the protection for sexual orientation. If homosexual practices have been protected by the courts without question but religious practices tend to be subject to some more rigorous standards, gay rights will always trump religious rights.

The Knights of Columbus in British Columbia recently refused to permit a gay couple to use their facility for a same sex wedding. As a result, they have been called to account for their actions by the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal. It seems that the religious beliefs may not be enough to protect them against a charge of discrimination based upon the sexual orientation of their rejected clients.

As a result of decisions in several provinces, the traditional and universal definition of marriage violates the charter right to equality of homosexual couples who want to marry. I find it interesting that other countries have not made the same claim that Canada makes, that marriage as we have known it constitutes a rights violation. The United Nations Human Rights Commission has, in practice, denied that it is a rights violation.

If the charter explicitly guarantees homosexual couples the identical rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples, those of us who think same sex marriage is a massive social experiment with unknown consequences will have no basis for criticizing these judges. The problem is that not only does sexual orientation not appear in the equality rights section of the charter, but a motion to include it was explicitly rejected by those who framed the charter. Judges have brazenly put in what the framers kept out.

Since when was homosexual marriage a human rights issue? Same sex is not listed as a human right in the U.S. Bill of Rights, the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, the European Declaration of Human Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I again ask, what has changed since 1999? How has same sex marriage suddenly become a human rights issue if it is not contained in the charter? In my opinion the courts are putting in what they believe Parliament neglected. Again, who are the legislators in the country?

When the charter was being created, our former prime minister, the right hon. Jean Chrétien, defended section 33, the notwithstanding clause. He saw section 33 as a safety valve that would ensure that legislators, rather than judges, would have the final say on important matters of public policy. This would allow elected governments to correct situations without going through the difficulty of obtaining constitutional amendments. This was a very important tool given to the government.

Section 33 does not permit legislators to override rights but to override the judicial interpretation of what constitutes a reasonable balance between rights. Using the notwithstanding power is a perfectly legitimate response to the courts' usurpation of the legislative responsibilities to make laws such as the definition of marriage. This is especially true in regard to the same sex marriage debate because the courts have added new meaning to the charter that was explicitly rejected when it was being written.

In my opinion we cannot tinker with the fundamentals of an institution like marriage without expecting significant consequences. Marriage is not improved by becoming all things to all people. Changing the public meaning of an institution changes the social reality. It transforms the understandings and practices supported by that institution.

Redefining marriage to include same sex couples may appear to be a simple solution to a perceived present day inequality, but the notion of marriage as an opposite sex relationship is so deeply rooted in our society that its redefinition may have far-reaching effects on the future development of our society that cannot be predicted.

Across societies, marriage has institutionalized and symbolized the inherently procreative relationship between a man and a woman. It has established the societal norm that in entering marriage a man and a woman take a shared obligation to protect and nurture the children who are born to them. Marriage has never been so heavily associated with the wants and needs of adults as individuals. If we focus more on the benefits of adults as individuals, it will be our children and future generations who will suffer the consequences.

The government did not create the heterosexual institution of marriage but it did recognize it as such and gave it status in law. By doing this, the government did not remain neutral but instead chose to affirm that marriage was a heterosexual union. Now as a result of court rulings, we the legislators are being told that the definition is no longer valid and are being asked to support Bill C-38, the civil marriage act currently before Parliament.

As I stated in the beginning, I voted in support of the traditional definition of marriage in 1999 and in 2003. I remain committed to defending the definition not only because of my personal beliefs, but because the majority of my constituents in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex agree with me as well. I believe that redefining marriage will have far-reaching negative effects on the future development of our society. Therefore, I am unable to support Bill C-38.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you and all Canadians know the reason the Conservative Party of Canada abstained from voting for the budget is that the budget was very popular with Canadians. In fact the Conservatives did not want to go knocking on doors given the fact that the budget was there. I say that just so we are clear with respect to the preamble.

This afternoon we will continue to debate the supply day motion. On Friday we will consider report stage and third reading of Bill C-3, the Coast Guard bill; Bill S-17, which ratifies a number of tax treaties; Bill C-23, the human resources bill; and Bill C-22, the social development bill.

When we return on March 21 we will resume debate on Bill C-38, the civil marriage bill. Tuesday, March 22 shall be an allotted day. On Wednesday, March 23 we will consider report stage and third reading of Bill C-30, the compensation bill. If we complete that, we will resume business from Friday. We will then return to the marriage bill on March 24.

With respect to the budget implementation bill, I expect to be introducing that bill in the House in the very short term. At that time the hon. member will see its exact contents.

Petitions

[Sébastien Gagnon, Bloc, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hereby table a petition on behalf of constituents in my riding. This petition expresses their opposition to Bill C-38.

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Rural Communities)]

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling in this House a petition sent by the Assemblée de Beauce 1043 regarding Bill C-38.

Marriage

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, a new Statistics Canada study adds to the research showing how important it is for children to be raised by both a mom and a dad.

Researchers found that teenagers “who reported that their relationship with their father had increased in closeness, understanding and affection over time” were less likely to have symptoms of depression. Statistics Canada reported that “these results occurred for both young men and women, regardless of household income or whether the young people lived in either single or two parent families”.

Teens were also shown to respond differently to changes in their relationship with their father in contrast to changes in their relationship with their mother. This Statistics Canada research found that changes in teens' relationship with their dad had a more significant impact on how they felt about themselves.

In the midst of the current marriage debate in this chamber, Statistics Canada has confirmed the vital importance of boys and girls having a positively involved mom and dad.

As parliamentarians, we have an obligation to take this latest scientific evidence into account and, based on it, should oppose Bill C-38 and affirm time honoured traditional marriage.

Civil Marriage Act

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the member's point. They have rights and those rights are not infringed upon. They have a choice to make.

Let me conclude in the remaining moments. Again I want to thank hon. members for being respectful and tolerant of the differing views of others, but I want to reiterate that in the analysis that I have done, the judgments I have read, the speeches I have heard, the feedback I have received from NGOs, special interest groups and everywhere else, there are some concerns not about the short term implications but the longer term consequences.

As a result, that is why my position is that Bill C-38 should not go forward but rather we should invoke the notwithstanding clause. We should take the time to properly assess the section 1 analysis ourselves and the other broader implications so that Parliament indeed can make a fully informed decision.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by saying how pleased I am that members have continued to come before this place in a manner which reflects their beliefs and their concerns about a very important piece of legislation which has the potential to affect all Canadians.

In the first part of my speech, I would like to deal a little with our charter. I want to then get into a case in B.C. in 2001 which reached one conclusion and then I will get into the Halpern case, which in fact reached quite a different conclusion. Then I want to look at some of the potential implications both on the family and with regard to religious rights.

Canadians are very proud of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When it came in in 1982 it became a document which, together with our Constitution, ultimately defines who we are in Canada. It defines our values. Included in it is a guarantee of rights and freedoms. Those fundamental freedoms, which I would like to read into the record, are as follows:

1. Everyone has the following fundamental rights and 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.

The charter then goes on in section 3 to outline our democratic rights, our right to vote and the right for a Parliament to sit.

Section 6 deals with our mobility rights. This is extremely important and is very characteristic of Canada. It states:

Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

We are mobile. It states:

(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident in Canada has the right

a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and

b) to pursue the gaining of livelihood in any province.

We are free to move around this country and to enjoy all of the benefits that Canada gives us all.

Section 7 deals with our legal rights. It states:

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.

It goes on to lay out more details with regard to those rights.

Then there are the equality rights under section 15. This is most specifically important to the case before us and the bill before us. It basically says that we are all equal under the law to its benefits and to its protection. I will get into that a little more.

The charter also provides that we are a country of two official languages. It also provides under section 23 minority language education rights.

In addition to the enforcement of this and the general provisions of the charter, there is section 33, which is also going to be important in terms of the assessment of the implications of this bill. It is one of the most misunderstood sections in the charter. It is called the notwithstanding clause. It is part of the charter and yet it has been described by some as being a draconian instrument, as somehow a bad thing. Yet it is in my view the only tool that Parliament has to make sure that Parliament remains the highest court in the land, even above the Supreme Court of Canada.

The charter protects all of us. Some have said that this is an issue of minority rights. We are all minorities in some way; it protects us all. That is its most brilliant feature: that we are all one.

As I mentioned earlier, subsection 15(1) is quite important to this debate. It 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....

There are, however, two substantive exceptions to that equality provision. The first, as I mentioned earlier, is section 33 of the charter, commonly referred to as the notwithstanding clause. It permits an act of Parliament or legislature to continue to operate for up to five years. It basically is a holding pattern. It says that we are not going to deal with the charter implications right away, that we are going to let this law continue until we can stand back and look at the substantive or broader implications that changing that law may have.

The second broad exception is found in section 1. Section 1 reads:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

It states very clearly that our rights and freedoms are guaranteed, but what if there is a conflict? And there is in this case: there is a conflict between the benefits to society of extending marriage to same sex couples versus the consequences or the implications of not doing it. What does it mean? What are the implications?

It is this section 1 which was used until 2003 to justify why the definition of marriage could exclude same sex couples; it is the section 1 analysis about the benefits versus the negative consequences of making that change.

For many years, cases have been fought before the courts to challenge the definition of marriage as being unconstitutional. In the fall of 2001, one such case was heard by the Supreme Court of British Columbia. I will lay out a couple of the points here.

In that case, the Attorney General of Canada argued the point that the objective of limiting marriage to opposite sex couples is sufficiently important to warrant infringing on the rights of same sex couples. The next point was that the purpose of marriage is to provide a societal structure for the procreation of children in order to perpetuate Canadian society.

It was also argued that there was a rational connection between the objective and the limitation of marriage to opposite sex couples, because it is by such relationships that procreation occurs. It also was stated, having considered the implications, that the law minimally impairs the rights of same sex couples.

The Attorney General also argued that denying the legal status of marriage to same sex couples deprives them of the marriage label but does not deprive them of other rights or other obligations derived from marriage, and that is a very important distinction. Finally, it was argued that the gain to society from the preservation of the deep-rooted and fundamental legal institution of opposite sex marriage outweighs the detrimental effect of the law on same sex couples.

These were the arguments laid forward by the Attorney General of Canada in the 2001 case. The presiding judge was the Honourable Mr. Justice I.H. Pitfield. In his judgment, he agreed with the arguments put forward by the Attorney General of Canada. He further noted that the authors of the Constitution--and this is important--recognized the inherent discrimination in marriage and divorce and comprehended that these matters were of such a pressing, substantial and national importance that they assigned exclusive jurisdiction over them to the federal Parliament. This basically said that marriage and divorce were so important to Canada, to our society, that their jurisdiction was going to be for the federal Parliament, the highest Parliament.

In his interpretation of the law, Justice Pitfield also opined that he did not understand the law to be that the charter could be used to alter the head of power under subsection 91(26) of the Constitution Act, so as to make marriage something it was not. He basically questioned whether or not the charter could be used to alter the intent, the understanding and the comprehension of the Constitution Act.

He went on to say that other than the desire for recognition and acceptance of homosexual relationships, there is nothing that should compel the equation of a same sex relationship to an opposite sex relationship when it is a biological reality that the two can never be the same.

In his opinion, the issue before the court really had nothing to do with the worth of any individual, but was rather whether marriage must be made something it is not in order to embrace other relationships, a very interesting way to put it. Concluding that the benefits associated with preserving marriage for opposite sex couples far outweighed the negative consequences of denying same sex marriage, the court ruled that the infringement on the equality rights of same sex persons is reasonably justified under section 1 of the charter.

In July 2002 in the Halpern v. Canada, the Ontario Supreme Court heard a similar case challenging the existing definition of marriage. Just a year earlier we had the same case come before the B.C. court. Now we are before the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Effectively, the case discredited heterosexual marriage by citing divorce rates and the growth of common law relationships. It also dismissed the importance of the ability to procreate, citing the availability of reproductive technology such as artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, surrogacy and adoption, to name a few. By the flavour of the court case and the arguments being made, all of a sudden we are challenging what happened in the B.C. court decision by looking at marriage and the distinctive characteristics of marriage, and trying to discredit them to the point that it might tip the balance in terms of the section 1 analysis of the charter.

On June 10, 2003, the court concluded that the existing legal framework was discriminatory, since it failed to provide fair public recognition of gay and lesbian unions. The decision also stated that the infringement could not be demonstrably justified under section 1 of the charter, citing that the exclusion of same sex couples from the right to marry served no identifiable, pressing or legitimate government objective.

In my view, this view summarily dismisses the relevance of marriage to any aspect of the social well-being of Canadians, which in fact is one of the reasons why we are here. It is to protect the health and well-being of all Canadians, especially our children, so that I would absolutely disagree with the statement of the judge.

More specific, and I would like to read right from the decision of Justice Smith, in the first two points of the decision. He said first of all under:

--to declare the common law definition of marriage as the “lawful and voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others” to be constitutionally invalid and inoperative...

We understand that. Here is one that really interests me. Then he said, “I would suspend the operation of the foregoing declaration”, that is the unconstitutionality of that definition, “for a period of 24 months to enable Parliament (and, where applicable, the provincial Legislature) to create its own remedial provisions in this area consistent with the requirements of the Charter”.

The Ontario Court of Appeal extended a 24 month period of abeyance on the unconstitutionality of the definition of marriage so that Parliament and legislators could sort out some of this. It was contemplating, it was begging us to look at this, because this was such an important change. Why the Department of Justice decided that it was not appropriate to appeal this decision or to address the point raised by the courts is beyond me. It was the biggest mistake that ever could have been made.

We should consider, for instance, what we go through in the referendums on Quebec separation. We have a referendum and the people and say no. We have another referendum and the people say no. Then we have another one, and if they say yes, then it is all over. There are no more referendums. That is exactly what I think has happened here. We have a series of court cases, all arguing the same issue about the constitutionality of the definition of marriage and the infringement on the equality rights of gays and lesbians. However, this one changed it, notwithstanding that there was a series of decisions that said it was a justifiable infringement on the rights, one decided to say let us have a look at this. That was the Ontario Court of Appeal.

At that very point, we should have appealed it or there should have been a mechanism whereby the courts across the land, all the stakeholders who had made these decisions, should have had an opportunity before the Supreme Court to argue their case with regard to the section 1 analysis. The issue is whether or not there is proportionality and whether or not the detriment to one party is offset by the gain to the other. Is it reasonably justified? Section 1 is all about that.

The court strikes down the existing law of marriage as discriminatory and redefines marriage as a union of two persons. Then, following that, there were six other provincial courts and another territorial court which came up with copycat decisions. It was not new and different. It was just a domino effect. Somebody had to make the statement. It shows that they were just waiting for someone to make the move.

That is why all those arguments should have been brought together under one umbrella, and a discussion should have taken place on what were the implications and what was the section 1 analysis. Parliament and every court across the land should have been involved in that very important decision.

In assessing the Ontario Court of Appeal decision, Justice Robert Blair warned that the legal redefinition of marriage would not be an incremental change but a profound one, with extremely complex consequences. These include touching the core of many people's beliefs and value systems, resulting in social, political, cultural, emotional and legal ramifications.

This ominous assessment calls for reasonable pause to consider the possible need to invoke the notwithstanding clause. Since the beginning of recorded history, the history of marriage has been an opposite sex social institution which has numerous defining characteristics beyond companionship and intimacy of two people.

Let me talk about marriage.

Marriage promotes the bonding of men and women and the creation of a stable and durable partnership of life and property. It recognizes the interdependence of men and women. It embodies the spiritual, social, economic and contractual dimensions. It reflects a commitment to fidelity and monogamy. It serves as an optimal societal structure for birthing and rearing of children, at least to the extent necessary for perpetuating society. It provides for mutual support between men and women, supports the birthright of children, promotes bonding between men and children, guides the transformation of children into young men and women who are readying themselves for marriage and the beginning of a new cycle, and grows the family tree and develops broad supports and securities for all members.

The potential change to the parent-child bond and the resulting effect on society is incalculable. Members should know that lone parent families represent 15% of all families in Canada, but they account for 54% of all children living in poverty. That is what happens when there is not have a mother and a father in the household. We also know the biological parents usually protect and provide for their children more effectively than non-biological ones.

There are also clear possible effects on religious rights which are now going to be more difficult to defend. Even though the religious officials will not be forced to marry them, there will certainly be court challenges. There are already hints that the courts are willing to privatize religion or restrict the values of religious institutions.

Finally, I believe that the redefinition constitutes a radical societal change. It may not have immediate societal consequences. but over time it could have enormous implications. This is not just about the infringement of rights of gays and lesbians. It is also about diminishing the relevance of the most important social institution of our society, and that is marriage.

In my opinion, the potential for material and adverse 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.

With respect, my view is that Bill C-38 should not be passed and that the notwithstanding clause under section 33 of the charter should be invoked to provide Parliament with the time it needs to make a fully informed decision.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me congratulate my colleague from Calgary Centre for his stand on this particular issue. I know it is not always easy to stand alone or to stand with very few people in his party because he is standing up for what he believes to be right. I congratulate him on that.

On the issue of religious freedom, I think it is imperative that religious freedom be maintained. The courts have done that. To me religious freedom is a very important issue. I will go back to my days when I was living in Hungary under a communist dictatorship. I used to rise and attend three masses every Sunday morning, even though the state frowned upon it. I looked upon Cardinal Mindszenty who was the real focus of resistance against Stalin and the communist dictatorship. Freedom of religion is something that I have greatly appreciated and will fight for.

There is no question that the ruling has protected freedom of religion. Essentially, this bill has increased freedom of religion. The reason I say that is because some religions believe that they should be able to marry same sex couples. The United Church has come to that conclusion. The Unitarian Church has taken that direction and today we have debate in many of the churches. The latest is the debate in the Anglican Church. Who knows, they might even expel the Canadian congregation because of this debate on same sex marriage.

I believe that Bill C-38 enhances religious freedom. It allows churches that previously were not able to marry same sex couples to do so. Also, it puts the debate where it belongs.

There is a limitation on what governments can do. This is where churches and other institutions become very important. By that, what I mean is we can pass laws that thou shalt not kill thy neighbour and that thou shalt not assault thy neighbour. However, we in this chamber can never pass a law that thou shalt love thy neighbour. That can only be done by other institutions in our society, churches being one of them.

People have no need to fear in terms of religious freedom. This bill is very consistent with religious freedom. It also enhances religious freedom by giving the churches, the temples, the gurdwara, and the synagogues an opportunity to debate if they are going to allow same sex marriage within their institutions, yes or no. The decision will be made by the congregation and that is where the debate fully belongs, not in terms of a secular government. We have to embrace all Canadians and also appreciate their differences.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to partake in this historic debate. Let me congratulate the member for Vancouver East who just spoke very eloquently on the issue, as well as the member for Burnaby—Douglas. This must be a very happy occasion for them, as it is for all gays and lesbians in Canada.

When we talk about Canada we must recognize that we are a collection of minorities. There is no majority in this country. Everybody belongs to a minority group to the extent that we might be in the majority one day, and we could very easily be in a minority position the next.

This issue deals with the rights of a minority. It was not that long ago when Pierre Elliott Trudeau declared that the government had no business in the nation's bedrooms, and homosexuality was actually legalized. It is important when we talk about the context of Bill C-38 that we talk about it in terms of two particular issues. We talk about the legal aspects and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but we must also talk about why Bill C-38 is good public policy.

If we pass this bill, we will join two other nations in leading the world in inclusiveness. This is important because we are not talking about tolerance as we talk about this bill; we are talking about inclusiveness and what kind of country we as Canadians want.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has played such an important part in the debates on this issue and clearly the Supreme Court has ruled on the applicability of the charter. Let us consider why we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned some issues. Let me go through some of them.

We had the Asian exclusion act. We had the Chinese head tax. We had internment of Ukrainians and others from Austro-Hungary. We had internment of Italians and Germans. We had internment of Japanese Canadians. We had the almost forceful repatriation of Japanese Canadians after the second world war. We sent them back to Japan even though that country had been destroyed during the war and even though the atomic bomb had been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I mention that because many of those people were Canadian born.

Of course, we all know about the SS St. Louis , a ship that was carrying Jews looking for refuge. Canada along with other countries in North America and South America turned them away. We know that we had a policy of none is too many for the Jews. We know that the colour barrier existed on immigration until 1977. We know that there was cultural genocide against our first nations. We know what happened with the residential schools. We know about the ban on potlatches and that big houses were outlawed. We know that women were not given the right to vote until 1917, and it was not until 1929 that the English privy council recognized women as persons.

In talking about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is important to mention that Canada has a constitutional government. We are governed in terms of our Constitution. It is important to point out that subsection 52(1) of the Constitution states:

The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the in consistency, of no force or effect.

That is important to understand. It means that the interpreters of the Constitution in our constitutional democracy are the courts and we leave questions relating to the Constitution to them. It was the courts that made the ruling that same sex marriage is indeed something that is desirable and legal and that for us not to adopt it would be discriminatory. We would have to use section 33 of the Constitution which deals with the notwithstanding clause.

The reason our Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted on April 17, 1982 is that it dealt with the recognition of the evolution of this country. It dealt with the recognition of how minorities had not been treated very well. It dealt with making sure that we learned from the lessons of the past and that as we looked forward to the future in terms of evolving as a nation, that we used the charter and the past as a guidance to the kind of inclusive Canada we want to build.

As a nation we pay a very heavy price for intolerance. Gay bashing still exists. Gays are still attacked and killed. There is a high rate of suicide among gays and lesbians in our country. Hate propaganda still exists. I mention that because it is so very important for us to look at our country's history and a vulnerable group that has been stigmatized and victimized in the last 40 years has been allowed to come out of the shadows. We all know members of this House who are gays or lesbians. We know they are essentially the same kind of people as we are. We know they have the same kind of dreams that we have. We know that they have the same kind of love that we have, whether we are heterosexual or not.

When I talk about intolerance, let me use the example of Fred Phelps, the pastor of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas. After 9/11 he stated:

The Rod of God hath smitten fag America! ....At left is the filthy face of fag evil. [Hijacked and murdered American Airlines pilot] David Charlebois. One of the hundreds of fags and dykes and fag-/dyke-enablers working for American Airlines--

Most of us very strongly reject that type of commentary. Because of that kind of commentary we passed Bill C-250 which dealt with hate propaganda. We did that to protect a minority in our country, a minority that has been a vulnerable minority.

When I mentioned the price of intolerance and I mentioned suicides, gays and lesbians are seven to eight times more likely to attempt suicide than are heterosexual Canadians. About 30% of suicides in Canada are gays and lesbians, approximately 818 to 968 deaths per year. This is about 15 times the rate for heterosexuals.

Let me talk about why this bill is good public policy. It is good public policy because it recognizes gays and lesbians as people of the same sex who are involved in a loving relationship. It is indeed good public policy. Any time there is stability in a loving relationship it is good public policy. It helps people with their self-worth.

We as a society very much have an interest in promoting stability among couples. It is in our interests to be inclusive. It is also in our interests to accept the children of those parents who are in same sex relationships. That provides a great deal of stability.

There is a dichotomy of views in Canada. As we have been engaged in this debate it has been interesting to look at young Canadians, particularly those young Canadians who have grown up with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There was a series of articles in the Globe and Mail in 2003 which resulted in the book called The New Canada . It talks about the new face of Canada. One of the conclusions in the book is that we in Canada have the most inclusive young people in the world.

For example, about a year ago people were asked if they were in favour of same sex marriage. Of the people in the age group 18 to 34, 65% said yes. For people 55 and older, it was 32%. In response to the question whether they believed in protection of the charter for gays and lesbians, 81.2% of the younger generation said yes, while it was down to 56.1% for the older generation.

The issue we are dealing with is so very fundamental to our well-being as a country. I can only conclude with some comments from people who have written to our national newspapers.

This was written by Marie Morrison and appeared in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record on February 17:

--same-sex marriage expresses concern about the well-being of children who are denied having both a mother and father. I feel the need to educate him and others who are concerned for the children of same-sex marriages or relationships. Research on this issue has found that children raised by same-sex parents develop and adjust just as well as those raised by opposite-sex parents. In 2002, the American Psychiatric Association released a position statement that optimal development for children is not based on the sexual orientation of the parents, but on stable attachments to committed and nurturing adults. My partner and I are the loving same-sex parents of a child and are very committed to his emotional, physical, spiritual and social well-being. He is surrounded by friends and family who love him and who accept and support his family. My greatest concern regarding the well-being of our son is that his exposure to biased and intolerant opinions and attitudes regarding family diversity will cause him to doubt himself and the validity of his family.

On Friday there was an opinion piece in the Toronto Star that was written by Matthew Eaton-Kent, 17 years old, a grade 11 honour student and an avid athlete. He lives with his two moms, 14 year old sister, two dogs and one cat in Halton Hills just outside of Toronto. I am going to read part of his submission:

That's how it has always been in my family. One of my mother's celebrates Mother's Day while the other celebrates Father's Day. Sure, it was a bit awkward at school but it didn't make my family any less of a family. In fact we kids thought it was a great way to recognize both of our moms.

However, there is something that makes my family different from a lot of families. The difference is that my parents have never been married. The reason my parents have never been married is not because they don't want to but because, by law, they couldn't. Their relationship was not recognized because marriage was defined as between a man and a woman.

It has been very hurtful to my parents, the gay community and believers in human rights that there has been so much opposition to same-sex marriage. It's been hurtful to my sister and me, too. Very hurtful!

Personally I am perplexed by the extreme opposition to changing the definition of marriage so it can include unions between two people, any two people. As someone born into a generation of political correctness and void of any blatant racism, sexism or xenophobia, it is hard to deal with the hateful nature of the opponents of same-sex marriage.

I am not sure why they don't view the love of my parents as equal to the love between two people of the opposite sex. If they question the commitment, they should note the 27 years my parents have spent together and the way they have cherished my sister and me.

I find a lot of the hate and opposition comes from many of the institutions that promote peace, love and understanding. Some churches have fought the right of same-sex couples to marry. I wish they would look back in history to a time when religious freedom was jeopardized. People who were historically persecuted are all too willing to be prejudiced, all in the name of God.

I am a teenager growing up in an era of equality, an era where blacks are equal to whites, where a man is equal to a woman. This era should include same-sex marriage and my parents. All of us are made in the image of God, are we not?

As we participate in the debate and as we deal with the legislation, we, as members of Parliament, have an opportunity to send a message to our fellow Canadians. That message is that people like Matthew Eaton-Kent, 17, and his 14 year-old sisters and all those other people in Canada who have felt stigmatized and discriminated against are welcome to our inclusive Canada.

This debate is about nothing more and nothing less. Are we, as Canadians, ready to step forward and become an inclusive country, not a tolerant country where we put up with others, but an inclusive country where we recognize and embrace each other's differences?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-38. I have to say there were times when I thought this would never happen. There seemed to be so many delays for political reasons or to accommodate a political agenda.

I am very glad that finally this bill is before Parliament and is being debated. I hope very much that the bill will be approved and that it will not be so drawn out that somehow it gets lost again, because I think it is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation that we will deal with for a very long time.

The first thing I wish to say is that I am very proud of our leadoff speaker on this debate, the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, who rose in the House last Wednesday and spoke with such great courage. He shared with us very personal information about his own life as a gay man and about his partner of 24 years, Brian. As I listened to that debate, I felt very proud to be a member of this caucus and this party where our leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth, has been so clear on what the position of the NDP is.

I wish to thank the member for Burnaby—Douglas for speaking out in such a strong and forceful way and for I think really giving a human face, a real face, to what this debate is about. I am also very proud of our leader, who has done the same thing.

For me this debate is not about tolerance. I listened to the comments of the Minister of National Defence a little earlier. He said he would be very proud when this bill passes and I would certainly agree with him. I think he made a very fine speech. I too will be very proud when this bill passes, as I hope it does.

But I think it needs to be said that Bill C-38, if it were left to the Liberals and the Conservatives, would not pass. It really begs the question as to the reality. We have a Prime Minister who on the one hand has spoken about the values of human rights, dignity and respect to the Canadian people, but on the other hand has allowed his own members to have a free vote. I think that is unfortunate.

I listened to the minister of defence and the questions and comments that came later and I must say that to me this bill is not about some notion of tolerance. I actually do not even like that word; that we somehow tolerate other people who we see as different from ourselves. There is a sense of judgment in that, in saying that we will tolerate someone on the basis of their beliefs.

To me, this bill and this debate are about rights. This is about dignity. This is about individual liberties and individual choice.

I would also like to recognize the work that was done by the former member of Parliament for Burnaby—Douglas, Mr. Robinson. I think it was two or three years ago when I stood in this House to support his private member's bill on same sex marriage. Certainly in Canada Mr. Robinson has been at the forefront of the campaign, the movement and the struggle for gays and lesbians to seek equality. In the early years, when he first came out, the work that he took on was very difficult and very painful for him. Certainly there was a backlash. The courage he displayed has allowed many of us to come forward and has paved the way for gay and lesbian rights in this country. The work that was done needs to be remembered, recognized and valued.

I was also very proud to be part of the press conference on Valentine's Day, February 14, with the member for Burnaby—Douglas and the Bloc member for Hochelaga. The three of us engaged in a press conference because we wanted to speak out as gay and lesbian members of the House. We wanted to talk about our own lives. We wanted to put that before the House.

Although there were some tough questions and we were dealing with a situation that was sometimes confrontational and controversial, I was very proud. I think what we were trying to say was that we wanted this debate and this issue to be about dignity and respect. That was the message that we brought to the press conference and that we bring to this debate.

I was here last Wednesday, February 16, when the debate began. I listened to the Prime Minister. I actually really appreciated the history that he gave about the charter and equality and where it has come and how it has evolved. I think it was very important to put that on the record.

I also listened to the leader of the official opposition, the leader of the Conservative Party. I think he spoke for more than an hour. The thing that struck me most about his speech, even though some people may believe it was a very eloquent and a very heartfelt speech, is that it was very unreal. It was very out of touch with the lives of real people in Canada.

In fact, today I was on the radio debating with a Conservative member, the member for Cambridge. As we were debating this bill he told me and the listeners that he felt the speech of his leader was something like a doctoral thesis. I guess he was very impressed with the speech. He thought it was very academic and from his perspective he thought that it covered all kinds of legal points. He likened it to a doctoral thesis.

He then went on to say in the radio debate and interview this morning that he felt the bill before us was talking away his rights, a Conservative member's rights, in terms of marriage and the institution of marriage. I have to say that I had some real trouble understanding the meaning of this argument and where it was going.

I certainly did not see the speech from the Conservative Party leader as a doctoral thesis. Maybe it would serve well as some doctoral thesis, but to me the debate fundamentally comes down to dealing with the reality of people's lives and how we as a society treat people, especially minorities.

We have had all of these very significant court cases, and the legal route and the litigation that happened were incredibly important because they paved the way for this debate to happen, but at the end of the day, after all the legal arguments are said and done, I think what we are dealing with is a matter of people's individual choices and lives and what we choose to do in terms of getting married or not.

So when the member for Cambridge today said that this debate for him was about taking away his rights, I have to say I really do not understand that. I do not understand how strengthening and enlarging the definition of civil marriage is taking away anybody's rights.

As I said before in the House, this bill on same sex marriage is not about forcing the member for Cambridge or the member for Calgary Southeast to marry a man if they do not want to. There is nothing in the bill that creates harm. There is nothing in the bill that undermines the institution of marriage.

On the contrary, as the member for Burnaby--Douglas pointed out so beautifully in his speech, this debate and this bill are about actually strengthening the institution of civil marriage. This is about strengthening people's commitment to one another.

To come back to the Conservative leader's speech, what I was struck by, as I said, was the lack of humanity. If the debate is only about theoretical legal issues, and if that is the only part the Conservative leader can attach himself to, if that is the only way he can debate it and reconcile whatever is going on in his mind, then I think he has really missed the point. He has missed it on the basis of what is happening out there for a lot of people. I wanted to make that point.

In fact, what the Conservative Party offers up to us is this notion of a civil union. I have heard this so many times from different Conservative members and I have to say that we have to reject this notion.

If years ago there had been a debate about ending marriage as we know it as an institution and if the debate for everyone was about us all going to a civil union, then I think that debate would have had some merit, but at the eleventh hour to bring in an argument and to rest one's case on the idea that a civil union is going to do it is a really false notion, and I think people see it that way, as simply a rationale and a smokescreen to negate the real issue here, which is about equality in marriage.

If the institution of marriage is good enough for straight people, if it is good enough for a man and woman, then why is it not good enough for two women or two men if they choose to make that decision?

Then we have the member for Calgary Southeast. I have had some debate with the member. An article in The Globe and Mail today states, “MP doubts social benefit of same-sex marriage”. As for seeing the arguments that are produced there, I guess we could spend several days just debating how ridiculous they are, because he is resting his case on the idea that marriage is primarily or only about producing children, about procreation.

I think there are so many reasons why that is completely invalid. To begin with, all of us know couples, married people, who either choose not to have children or who maybe cannot have children. Are we saying that somehow their marriage is not to be validated or that it is not real? In fact, there are same sex marriages and same sex relationships where children are procreated. There are all kinds of families out there. There are different kinds of families. They have children or they do not, or parents are the biological parents or they are the adoptive parents. To me this is the whole point of the debate: it is to recognize the reality in our society that a family is not just one thing as defined by the Conservative Party of Canada. It is not that narrow.

The Minister of National Defence said that people evolve and decisions evolve. I would agree with that. It seems that only the members of the Conservative Party, which as we know dropped the word progressive from its name, are not able to evolve with this. They are denying many people in our society the same kind of respect, dignity and choice that other people have.

To rest one's case on the procreation argument is to rest it on a very false premise. I would recognize, though, that there are other members in the party. I read the article by the member for Calgary Centre-North, which appeared in his local paper or maybe in other papers, and I very much appreciated that the member had the courage to write an article and say where he stood: that he respected choice, dignity and people's rights and that he was in favour of the bill. I know that he is in a minority in his own party. There are a few others there as well. I very much respect that and the fact that he had the courage to speak out.

In terms of my own position, I do want to say that I do not see this as a debate about tolerance, as I said, or about destroying tradition or undermining other people's rights. In fact, what I believe is that one can actually be against same sex marriage and vote for the bill. I believe that is possible, because to me what this bill is about is our duty and responsibility as members of Parliament to uphold people's rights and choices.

I do not believe it is up to me as a member of Parliament to say to another couple that they have no right to get married. I think it is very possible that one can be opposed to same sex marriage for religious reasons, cultural reasons or personal reasons, whatever they might be, it does not matter. That choice is not taken away from those members, but I see a distinction between that and what our roles and responsibilities are as members of Parliament.

There are 308 of us and we have a very privileged position in this place. I believe that one of our core roles is to uphold the values of our society in terms of people's rights and their choices. I come here as a member of Parliament, no matter what my personal views are, and my duty is to uphold those rights for equality.

I would really encourage members of the Conservative Party to think about that, because at the end of the day surely it is my choice if I wish to marry my partner who is a woman. That is my choice to make as long as I am doing it within the bounds of civil marriage and so on. I cannot understand and I cannot see how any other member of the House or the state as a whole has a right to deny me that choice if I want to make that choice, if I choose to live common law or if I choose to be married with my partner who is a woman. To me, that is a very fundamental question in this bill that has been put forward.

The other question I want to deal with is the question of religious freedom. I know that members of the Conservative Party have raised this time and time again. I understand that within the faith community there are different points of view. There are some religious institutions and churches that feel very comfortable with the idea of same sex marriage and are actually willing to perform same sex marriages within a religious setting, churches such as the United Church of Canada, and I think that is great. But there is absolutely nothing in the bill that would force any religious institution, any synagogue, mosque, temple or church, to perform a same sex marriage if it did not want to.

The whole idea that this is somehow infringing on religious freedom is politically motivated. I am trying not to be negative in the debate. In the spirit of what others have said, I am trying to be very positive. I am trying to stick to the high ground. There have been some points where I have felt pretty damn mad about some of the comments made and the way the debate has taken place. There has been a political agenda. There has been an attempt to be divisive. There has been an attempt to go into ethnic communities try to divide people. Let us be clear. The bill protects religious freedom in every way. For anyone to say contrary is misrepresenting the bill.

We are getting thousands of e-mails, letters and faxes every day. We read through the ones that we can, but some go into the recycle bin. Some have been pretty vicious and others have had some pretty nasty messages in them. Some of them are quite hilarious and I have to laugh at them.

One that came forward said, “Even our Canadian goose mates for life. Let's learn from nature. Please vote to preserve the sanctity of marriage“. My response to that one might be something like Daffy Duck is no basis on which to base the principles of marriage.

Another one said, “Get control. You're an elected member of Parliament in a democratic country, therefore you are responsible to all Canadians, not your party. Use the authority that Canadians have given you to vote against Bill C-38“. I agree with that one. I am voting on the basis of upholding democratic choices for Canadians. It is funny how we interpret these things.

Another said, “Where is it going to end? End it now by voting against same sex marriage”. This message really plays into people's fear. Fear does exist in some communities. People are worried about losing their sense of tradition. Rather than MPs fueling and exploiting that fear, we have a responsibility to tell Canadians that this is not about fear. It is not about something ending. It is about something beginning. It is about extending the celebration of love and commitment into a civil institution of marriage. This is not something we should see as an end. We should see it as a great beginning.

I hope the debate on Bill C-38 will be a full and respectful debate, but I hope it does not go on forever. At some point we have to get the bill through. We have court decisions. Same sex couples are marrying every day, and we cannot go back and undo those marriages. I hope at the end of the debate we will recognize that we are reflecting the views of Canadian society and its values of dignity, respect and equality. Our party will be voting for the bill.

I want to thank all of the same sex couples who have devoted their lives to bringing us to this point. Many people put themselves on the line, both financially and personally, in terms of litigation. We should be grateful to them for the work they have done. I am speaking about groups like EGALE and Canadians for Equal Marriage which have done a tremendous amount of work. Let us now do our job and make sure that we vote for Bill C-38.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to participate in this debate on Bill C-38, the civil marriage act. It has been interesting to hear comment from all sides of the House on what is a very important issue.

On February 16 when the Prime Minister began this debate, he stated that it was an important day. In that respect I am in agreement with the Prime Minister. However, that is where my agreement with the Prime Minister ends on this issue.

This is an important debate. The decision we make as a Parliament will have a profound impact on Canada and the rights and freedoms we cherish.

First, I would like to explore the government's principal rationale for moving forward with redefining marriage at this time.

I listened carefully to what the Prime Minister said last week in his speech and also to what he did not say. What he did not say was most telling. The Prime Minister never once said that he actually supported same sex marriage. He talked at some length about the charter of rights and about the supposed need to change the definition of marriage in order to conform with lower court rulings, but he never actually said that he himself supported same sex marriage.

From a political standpoint it is perhaps understandable why he failed to do so. This is because the Prime Minister himself stood in this House six years ago and voted for a motion to protect the definition of marriage. He voted for a motion that pledged the House of Commons to use all necessary means to defend the definition of marriage. That is the same definition that has existed in Canada since Confederation and is universally known throughout cultures, countries, religions and communities.

For the Prime Minister now to openly utter the words “I support same sex marriage”, would beg the question: why, then, did he support the exact opposite position less than six years ago? Why did he stand in the House and promise to Canadians to protect the institution of marriage? Why should anyone in Canada trust any promise he makes about protecting freedom of religion and freedom of conscience in Canada now? For that matter, why should anyone trust him at all?

Instead of openly admitting to having changed his position, the Prime Minister has attempted to hide behind particular lower court interpretations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Prime Minister now argues that the government simply has no choice, that the courts have spoken and that the government is compelled to act. This is completely false. It was the Liberal government itself that refused to appeal the various lower court rulings on same sex marriage. That was a conscious and deliberate decision. Indeed, it was a decision made within the highest order of government, within cabinet itself.

The same government that in 1999 pledged to use all necessary means to defend marriage made a deliberate decision to break that promise and simply accept a lower court's findings. It made a deliberate decision to suddenly begin to argue that in fact the definition of marriage that has existed for millennia is now somehow unconstitutional.

The Liberal government went so far as to stack a parliamentary committee that was considering advising the justice minister on whether to appeal a certain lower court decision. Suddenly the government decided to shift positions and argue that the charter of rights had to be interpreted to mean that some sex marriage was a fundamental right enshrined in the charter.

How can something that was not considered a fundamental right just a few years ago, and indeed has never been considered a fundamental right anywhere else on earth, suddenly become a fundamental right? In fact, the United Nations Human Rights Commission ruled just in 2002 that it is not necessary to change the definition of marriage to accommodate equality concerns.

Is it now the Liberal government's position that countries which handle same sex relationships differently are somehow violating fundamental human rights? Are countries like Finland, Norway, Sweden, France, New Zealand and the United Kingdom going to be targeted by our Prime Minister as human rights violators? That would seem to be the logical conclusion of what the government is now arguing.

It is ludicrous to argue that a few court rulings by a handful of lower court judges must now serve as the sole justification for fundamentally altering a social institution that has served as the bedrock of our society for centuries.

Indeed, the Government of Canada itself argued a similar point less than two years ago in a factum it submitted to one of the marriage cases. It said:

In a constitutional democracy, it is the legislature, as the elected branch of government, that should assume the major responsibility for law reform. Major revisions of legal text, i.e. the common law, with complex or uncertain ramifications are best left to the legislature.

In other words, decisions of immense social significance should not be made flippantly. There must be a meaningful dialogue between the judiciary and the legislative branches of government.

The legislative branches are under no obligation to simply accept individual rulings by lower courts without challenging them. Indeed, an extremely dangerous precedent is established when they begin to do so. However that is exactly what the federal government has done in this instance.

I believe that the evidence is clear that the Supreme Court itself has signalled as much to the federal government in its response to the government's reference questions. When the government submitted its reference case on same sex marriage it asked, very specifically, whether the traditional definition of marriage was constitutional, and the Supreme Court of Canada did not answer that question, in effect turning the issue back to elected members of Parliament.

The court made the ruling despite the fact that the Government of Canada was now arguing that the traditional definition of marriage was unconstitutional.

The failure of the Liberal government to live up to its solemn promise to Canadians has left us with no final legal opinion on the traditional definition of marriage. Not only did the Liberals fail to take all necessary steps, after the court of appeal decision in Halpern, they failed to take any steps. Even worse, they began to argue on the other side against those seeking to maintain the definition of marriage.

Oftentimes it is the case that the Supreme Court of Canada has overturned a Court of Appeal decision in favour of the reasoning in a lower court. Therefore there is the very real possibility that the Supreme Court would have upheld the traditional definition of marriage had that Court of Appeal decision been appealed.

For instance, the Supreme Court of British Columbia, in a recent EGALE marriage case, and the Divisional Court of Ontario in 1993 both upheld the traditional definition of marriage. The B.C. case reads:

Same-sex and opposite-sex relationships are, at their core, demonstrably different. They cannot be equated except by changing the deep-rooted social and legal relationship around which Canadian society has evolved and continues to evolve. Because of the importance of marriage in the Canadian context, past and present, the salutary effect associated with the preservation of its opposite-sex core far outweighs the deleterious effect resulting from the refusal to provide legal status to same-sex relationships under the rubric of marriage. That is particularly so when the practical effect of recent legislative change has been to remove or minimize, where possible, the differences between the relationships as regards day to day living.

Further, the Supreme Court of Canada has never indicated in any ruling, and this was alluded to earlier, that the traditional definition of marriage was unconstitutional.

To the contrary, the Supreme Court last commented at length on the constitutionality of the definition of marriage. In the Egan decision on marriage, Justice La Forest clearly stated:

But its ultimate raison d'être 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.

He upheld the constitutionality of the traditional definition of marriage and said the marriage or relationship could quite rightly be identified as being a union of one man and one woman.

The fact that the Supreme Court of Canada may have upheld the traditional definition of marriage as constitutional is, in my opinion, one of the reasons that the government did not appeal the lower court decisions as normally would be the case. This has led to what anyone on any side of the issue would agree is a patchwork of legal realities across our country that we are currently seeing.

The evidence is quite clear that it is the Liberal government and not the courts that is now interpreting the charter to read same sex marriage rights into it. It is a deliberate policy choice that has been made by the government. It is not a policy that has been forced on the government by the courts, certainly not the Supreme Court.

The position first adopted by Parliament in 1999, when a true free vote took place, was very clear: same sex marriage has never been a fundamental right under Canadian law; it is not a fundamental right today; and no matter what the Prime Minister may claim, legislation that is coerced out of Parliament today cannot make it a fundamental right in the future.

We are beginning to see some of the grave implications as a result of this move by the government to change what the word marriage means.

In the Halpern decision, before the Liberal government switched sides in this debate, in typical Liberal fashion, the Attorney General of Canada submitted evidence to support the traditional definition of marriage. The factum of the attorney general in that case reads:

Marriage has always been understood as a special kind of monogamous opposite-sex union, with spiritual, social, economic and contractual dimensions, for the purposes of uniting the opposite sexes, encouraging the birth and raising of children of the marriage, and companionship.

The Government of Canada in its factum further warned of the negative consequences of changing an institution as fundamental to our society as marriage. Page 10 of that factum reads:

A profound impact on each of the universal or nearly universal features of marriage, leading to the loss of cultural norm of opposite-sex marriage;

The further de-stabilization of marriage privately and publicly by breaking the sense of constancy in its mission--“the most durable union through which to bear and raise children”;

It was in 1999 when Canadians relied on promises from the then justice minister and now our current Deputy Prime Minister. It is alarming to see the change in the government's position.

Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages...I fundamentally do not believe that it is necessary to change the definition of marriage in order to accommodate the equality issues around same sex partners which now face us as Canadians.

That is a quote from the then justice minister and our current Deputy Prime Minister.

She said further:

I support the motion for maintaining the clear legal definition of marriage in Canada as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

It is a flip-flop of the most immense proportions.

In justifying that position, she said:

We on this side agree that the institution of marriage is a central and important institution in the lives of many Canadians. It plays an important part in all societies worldwide, second only to the fundamental importance of family to all of us....

In essence, the Deputy Prime Minister put the full force and power of the government behind that promise as justice minister. Parliament, in turn, through an overwhelming cross party vote clearly signalled its intent on the matter as well.

What is the Deputy Prime Minister saying today? She is simply dismissing the promises made by both the executive and legislative branches of government in 1999. Last week, as I watched the debate, she seemed to shrug her shoulders as if to say “well, things change”.

This 180° change of position could have the most alarming of consequences. It makes the most fundamental guarantees and promises of the Government of Canada completely unreliable. In fact, it makes them utterly worthless. All of the assurances made now by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice about freedom of religion and freedom of conscience are simply without substance.

For instance, in his speech last week, the Prime Minister said:

...in 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.

Will we be standing in the House in 5 years, 10 years or 20 years from now reading that quotation back to the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice of the day and have the Minister of Justice shrug and say “Oh well, things change?”

What the Prime Minister does not want Canadians to know is that the Supreme Court of Canada has already found that the provisions of Bill C-38 that purport to protect Canadians' fundamental freedoms are outside the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada and are therefore unconstitutional.

One would think, in light of that, that the government would have left those provisions out. They are simply meaningless. However that is not what the Prime Minister has done. The Prime Minister's efforts to sell his agenda to Canadians seems to know no bounds, including putting hollow and misleading provisions in the legislation.

Regrettably, given what we already know about how the courts balance equality rights and religious freedoms, we have to conclude that it is highly likely and highly probable that, for example, the charitable status of religious based institutions that refuse to recognize same sex unions will increasingly be called into question. Religious based institutions, schools and charitable and other organizations will increasingly be taken before human rights tribunals. We are already seeing this. This is not some slippery slope that may happen some day in the future. It is happening today, simply for believing what they believe.

It is also instructive to examine other comments that the Prime Minister did not say. He did not say that his government would protect freedom of conscience for individuals and organizations who cannot support same sex marriage because of their beliefs. Members of the House should ask themselves if the Prime Minister had anything at all to say to the dozens of marriage commissioners across our country who have already lost their jobs because same sex marriage conflicts with their religious beliefs.

The deputy leader of the government in the House has already stated quite clearly that civil servants with responsibilities in this area should be sanctioned or fired if they do not go along with something that violates their most personal beliefs. What does the Prime Minister have to say about any of this? Nothing at all, just as I believe he will have nothing to say when other Canadian rights are trampled as a result of this legislation should it pass.

What the Prime Minister has not been saying in his words he is signalling with his actions in the House. He has already denied any dissenters in his cabinet who may oppose the bill on grounds of conscience a free vote on the question. The Prime Minister who came to power under the promise of addressing the democratic deficit has done everything he could to prevent this issue from being debated, from Canadians having input, and now, when a bill is finally brought before the House as a fait accompli, he is telling his cabinet ministers and certain parliamentary secretaries they must vote this way. They are being told simply they can support the policy shift or they can resign their positions.

That may soon be the choice that many ordinary Canadians face as well, for if a member of the cabinet of this House and many members of Parliament cannot be protected, cannot voice their concerns freely, then how can we expect that other Canadians' rights will be protected?

If the bill passes we will be redefining marriage in a way that Canadians do not want and do not believe is necessary to address equality rights. We know that no national court in our country, certainly the Supreme Court of Canada, or in the world for that matter has ever said that this is a fundamental right. As a matter of fact, the United Nations has not said that this is a fundamental right. If we look at where Canadians' views are on this, they believe in equality for all Canadians and they believe we can address all equality concerns without fundamentally altering an institution that has been the bedrock of our society and the world societies for centuries.

I will be opposing Bill C-38 in its current form and I encourage all members to consider those implications when they deliberate on whether they will support the bill.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my nearly 12 years here this is the first time that I was speaking just before question period and had to conclude my remarks following question period. Given that, I will take the opportunity to reiterate a couple of the key points I tried to make in my earlier comments.

First of all, I quoted judgments by two judges, one from B.C. and one from Quebec, who ruled in favour of the heterosexual requirement for marriage. I addressed the false analogy that so many people draw between the women's rights movement and the black civil rights movement and the attempt to equate them to same sex marriage. That is a patently false analogy. It is only through a misreading of history and specious logic that someone could come up with such a conclusion. Many women in Canada and black people, including personal friends whom I know very well, find that highly insulting.

I quoted three gay or lesbian people who gave very eloquent testimony against changing the definition of marriage and who spoke directly to the deleterious effects that such a move would have. Harvard University Professor William Eskridge, John McKellar here in Canada, and lesbian theorist Ladelle McWhorter all spoke eloquently and persuasively against changing the definition or marriage. They spoke directly to the negative consequences that would quite likely flow from such a ridiculous course of action.

I took on the human rights argument that is central to the position of so many of the people who are proponents of this. I noted that proponents of same sex marriage cannot point to a single national or international judgment that same sex marriage is a human right. They cannot point to a single one. They can point to several lower court decisions in this country, but they cannot point to the Supreme Court of Canada speaking to question four because it deliberately did not speak to question four on the constitutionality of the definition of marriage as we know it.

The Prime Minister further stated that we cannot return to the past, that is, retain the traditional definition of marriage, with a simple snap of the fingers. Recall that incredibly it was a simple snap of the legal fingers of three judges in Ontario that instantly redefined marriage in June 2003. This shockingly arrogant ruling is an insult to the people and Parliament of Canada.

At that time as I served on the justice committee I called for this ruling to be appealed by the federal government. The failure to do so is clearly the reason the Supreme Court refused to address itself to the constitutionality of the traditional definition of marriage, which as I noted is question four in the reference to the court. At that time, June 2003, the justice committee hearings were reduced to a pathetic farce. That time should be recorded as one of the most disgraceful and duplicitous moments in the history of our parliamentary deliberations as a nation. It was also the quintessence of judicial activism at its worst.

I again call on the Prime Minister to extend to all Liberal members of Parliament, including cabinet ministers, a free vote of conscience. This is not a mundane piece of legislation. It is one of the most important decisions any Canadian Parliament has made or will make. It offends the core moral beliefs of many MPs, including ministers. All members should be free to vote their conscience without coercion or penalty.

As I close, let me say that for me there is a higher truth and a greater judge than any we will find in the courts of Canada or any earthly court. Our courts do not have a monopoly on truth. Our charter, though important, is not sacrosanct. The government, pushed by the courts, is making a very serious mistake in a reckless and headlong rush to redefine marriage to the point that in Canada the word could become virtually meaningless.

This court driven radical experiment in social engineering could have incalculable negative long term effects on marriage and the family to the detriment of Canadian society. For me, this is an issue much more important than mere party politics. It goes directly to the heart of who I am and what I believe.

While all persons no matter what their sexual orientation deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, that does not mean we must imperil the future of true marriage so as to satisfy the illogical and immoral demand for same sex marriage.

The eyes of the nation are on us as we engage in this important debate. I believe the eyes of our ancestors and our dear deceased loved ones are also on us at this historic time. The real question is, will we betray the precious legacy of marriage and the family that they left us? Will we so easily and carelessly discard that precious legacy so as to reconstruct marriage into something it was never meant to be? I answer, no. And so here I stand to bear witness to the truth about marriage.

Therefore, I cannot vote for this legislation in good conscience. I will vote against this legislation. I feel compelled to do all I can to defeat Bill C-38.

As I close, let me say that this is an emotional and difficult issue for many Canadians, including me and my family. I want to express my gratitude to the many people who have offered me their support and prayers as, in cooperation with so many others, I have attempted to defend the traditional definition of marriage. I especially thank my wife, Evelyn, for her unwavering encouragement and steadfast love.

Petitions

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to present yet another petition on Bill C-38, which is receiving its second full day of debate.

These petitioners from my riding of Prince George—Peace River, specifically from the city of Fort St. John and the smaller communities of Taylor, Baldonnel and Charlie Lake wish to draw to the attention of the House that marriage is the best foundation for families and for the raising of children, and that this House did indeed pass a motion in June 1999 which called for marriage to continue to be recognized as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being the lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Civil Marriage Act

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to be very clear that absolutely no one in my party sought to vet my speech in any way. What I say today are my own words and I will stand by them.

This debate is truly an historic occasion for what is at stake is the future of the most vital institution in our nation, marriage and the family. Bill C-38, if enacted, will change the definition of marriage in Canada to include same sex couples. The bill states, “Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.”

This proposed definition is one that both I and my wife Evelyn, and millions of other Canadians find unnecessary, illogical and morally offensive. Opponents include members of every political party and no political party, of every faith and of no particular faith. Same sex marriage is an oxymoron because it denies the heterosexual prerequisite of true marriage. It is a real threat to marriage and the family which is the basic foundation of all human societies.

Mr. Justice Gonthier in the December 19, 2002, Supreme Court of Canada decision of Nova Scotia v. Walsh states:

Marriage and the family existed long before any legislature decided to regulate them. For centuries they have been central to society, contributing to its social cohesion and fundamental structure...Marriage and the family promote the psychological, social and economic well-being of all members of the family unit...The fundamental nature of marriage inheres in, among other things, its central role in human procreation...Marriage and family life are not inventions of the legislature; rather, the legislature is merely recognizing their social importance.

Rather than attacking marriage in a misguided effort to treat same sex couples fairly, our courts and our governments should be protecting the institution of marriage and defending the traditional definition.

In October 2001, in a decision which upheld the opposite sex requirement of marriage, Mr. Justice Pitfield of the supreme court of British Columbia emphasized the fundamental role of marriage when he stated:

The state has a demonstrably genuine justification in affording recognition, preference, and precedence to the nature and character of the core social and legal arrangement by which society endures...The gain to society...of the deep-rooted and fundamental legal institution of opposite-sex marriage outweighs the detrimental effect of the law on the petitioners.

In other words, traditional marriage is a unique and vital relationship on which the future of humanity depends. As such, it does not offend the charter to treat this special relationship in a preferential manner. True marriage results in the unifying act of sexual intercourse and is reproductive in type.

Robert P. George addresses this point in his article “Same Sex Marriage and Moral Neutrality”: He states:

What most of the proponents of same-sex marriage fail to realize is that the unity of spouses is distinct from any other kind of unity. What makes it distinct is the reproductive-type act, whereby a man and a woman become a single reproductive principle. This distinction makes marriage intrinsically ordered to the good of procreation as well to the good of spousal unity, and these goods are tightly bound together.

Repeatedly one hears that same sex marriage is a matter of human rights or minority rights and that to prohibit same sex relationships from being called marriage is unfairly discriminatory under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A plethora of public opinion polls shows that Canadians are divided on this point about evenly. Expert opinion is certainly divided even in the legal community.

As others have noted, those who claim same sex marriage is a human right cannot point to a single ruling by any national or international court, including the United Nations, or indeed by a human rights tribunal to support those arguments. Some people have even tried to draw an analogy between the women's rights and the black civil rights movements with the demand for same sex marriage. This analogy is utterly false. However well-intentioned its proponents, only by a misreading of history and the use of specious logic can one possibly arrive at such a patently false conclusions

Millions of Canadian women and many black persons, including personal friends of mine, feel insulted by this false analogy. To equate their legitimate demands for equal and just treatment consistent with natural moral law with the illegitimate demands for same sex marriage in contravention of natural moral law is illogical. It is equally illogical to argue that the natural extension of protecting individual rights of gays, which I and most Canadians support, is that two gays in a sexual relationship somehow have the right to co-op the term marriage to describe their relationship. The charter does not speak to group rights, even a group of two people. Rather, it speaks solely and exclusively to individual rights.

It should be noted that some gays and lesbians are most eloquent and persuasive opponents of same sex marriage. Consider the words of John McKellar, Executive Director of HOPE, Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism, who has stated:

--[it is] selfish and rude for the gay community to push same sex marriage legislation and redefine society's traditions and conventions for our own self-indulgence. Federal and provincial laws are being changed and the traditional values are being compromised just to appease a tiny, self-anointed clique...

I certainly agree with Mr. McKellar and with Bishop Ronald Fabbro of the Roman Catholic Diocese of London, who states:

--the issue is one of the common good of society, rather than one of individual rights. We have seen, in the last few decades, factors that have led to the devaluing of marriage, such as the increase in common-law unions and more lax divorce laws. Our concern is that this change in the definition will further devalue marriage.

The proponents of same sex marriage argue that no harm will be done to marriage and society if marriage is reconstructed to include same sex relationships. They note that gays and lesbians are being married in much of Canada currently and the sky has not fallen. Such facile and simplistic arguments totally ignore considerable expert advice which warns about the future long term erosion of marriage and the family if we surrender to the same sex lobby.

Lesbian theorist Ladelle McWhorte argues that if gay people are:

--allowed to participate as gay people in communities and institutions [heterosexuals] claim as theirs, our presence will change those institutions and practices enough to undermine their preferred version of heterosexuality and, in turn, they themselves will not be the same.

Yale University's expert legal theorist William Eskridge, an openly gay man, candidly concedes that:

Gay experience with “families we choose” delinks family from gender, blood, and kinship. Gay families of choice are relatively ungendered, raise children that are biologically unrelated to one or both parents, and often form no more than a shadowy connection between the larger kinship groups.

McGill University Professor Daniel Cere argues that the recent judgments in favour of same sex marriage are based on a vision which would disconnect children from their natural parent and that parenthood is reduced to nothing more than a functional activity separate from procreation.

If Bill C-38 becomes law, I sincerely hope these experts are wrong. However, the unmistakeable lesson of history is that they are right.

The legislation reconfirms the existing guarantee of religious freedom by which religious officials cannot be made to officiate at wedding ceremonies in contravention of their religious beliefs. So far, and with good reason, religious authorities in Canada do not feel very reassured on this point. It is easily predictable that this so-called guarantee will be challenged by gay and lesbian activists in a variety of ways. Given the track record of our Canadian courts, whenever religious freedom has clashed with supposed gay rights, it is all too obvious that religious leaders should be very concerned.

Religious leaders and Canadians who embrace religious values not only have the right but the duty to speak out in this debate. This is our country too, and we have every right to oppose this most serious threat to the cornerstone of our society: marriage and the family. The argument that we must be silent as per some erroneous and nebulous notion of the separation of church and state displays an incredible ignorance of Canadian history and the very founding of this nation in 1867.

In light of the inexorable judicial activism we have witnessed in the post-charter years, it seems clear to me that ultimately there is only one way to preserve the traditional definition of marriage: the use of the notwithstanding clause. The Leader of the Opposition argues that there is a way to preserve the traditional definition of marriage, short of using the notwithstanding clause. I will not repeat his arguments, but if his opinion proves to be legally correct, I will gladly support such a course of action. Millions of other Canadians would surely agree as well. For me, the use of the clause should be a last resort on vital issues and if it proves to be the only option, I support using it.

The Prime Minister argues that the use of the notwithstanding clause in this case would imperil the rights of all minorities who, in future, could find themselves threatened by the use of the clause to deny them their rights. Again, this argument equates the illegitimate demand for same sex marriage to the legitimate demand of other minorities for equal rights. With all due respect to the Prime Minister, it is illogical, hyperbolic and rather less than convincing to millions of Canadians, including legal experts.

May I remind those critics who vilify this clause, that it is section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Indeed, it can be argued that without this clause, the charter would never have been agreed to by the political leaders of Canada in 1981. Therefore, should there prove to be no other option, I call again on the Prime Minister to invoke this clause and defend the only logical and valid definition of marriage, the traditional definition.

The Prime Minister further has stated that we cannot return to the past, that is, retain the traditional definition of marriage “with a simple snap of the fingers”. Recall that incredibly it was a simple snap of the legal fingers of three judges in Ontario that instantly redefined marriage in June 2003. This shockingly arrogant ruling is an insult to the people and Parliament of Canada. At that time, as I served on the justice committee, I called for the ruling to be appealed by the federal government. The failure to do so is clearly the reason that the Supreme Court refused to address itself to the constitutionality of the traditional definition of marriage, which was question four in the reference to the court. Surely that time, when the justice committee hearings were reduced to a pathetic farce, should be recorded as one of the most disgraceful and duplicitous moments in the history of our parliamentary deliberations as a nation. It was also the quintessence of judicial activism at its worst.

I further call again on the Prime Minister to extend to all Liberal members of Parliament, including cabinet ministers, a free vote of conscience. This is no mundane piece of legislation. It is one of the most important decisions any Canadian Parliament has made or will make.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am extremely pleased to speak in the House on Bill C-38. This may not be the beginning of the end, but it is surely the end of the beginning. I travelled around Canada with the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to examine this issue. I am pleased to finally see the finish line.

During this journey, which will, I hope, lead to full equality for our fellow citizens who are homosexual, I would like the debates both inside and outside the House to be respectful of all sides, because the subject at hand is one that affects us deeply. This subject involves us as humans and concerns the most fundamental human and personal values we each hold. Great care must be taken not to hurt those whose opinion we do not necessarily share.

However, I must say that, at the same time, we have to be honest. I will start by saying that I am a bit disappointed by the attitude of the Conservative Party to this debate. Right from the start, they had decided to resort to delaying tactics to unnecessarily prolong the debate, in my opinion. When I hear, as I did earlier, Conservative Party members say, “My constituents want us to move on to something else and to talk about other issues”, this seems to contradict the fact that, first, they used delaying tactics and, second, that approximately 99% of their 99 members will speak in this debate.

That said, I believe it is essential to put this debate into context and establish the law at issue. The first, obviously, concerns the division of powers. We live in a federation. Although I do not want to be part of it, as long as we are, I will ensure that the division of powers is respected, specifically areas under Quebec's jurisdiction, and that the federal government does not intrude.

In the matter before us, the matter of marriage, or rather family law, the rule is as follows: family law is, as a general rule, under provincial jurisdiction. There are two exceptions to this: marriage—the status required in order to marry, and not the solemnization of marriage—and divorce.

As a result, Parliament, or we as parliamentarians, cannot address anything other than marriage and divorce. This means that we cannot, as parliamentarians, in any way create another form of conjugal union, whether termed civil union, registered partnership, or whatever, because we do not have the power to do so. As federal legislators, we cannot create or legislate on anything other than marriage, parts of marriage and divorce.

Hon. members will understand that we, as sovereignist MPs and members of the Bloc Québécois, cannot logically call upon Parliament to even try to legislate in something that comes under Quebec's jurisdiction. As a result, this is the first conclusion to be reached in order to properly situate this debate: we cannot legislate on anything except marriage and divorce, since the rest does not come under our jurisdiction.

As for the second point, in the constitutional document by which we are governed, there has been a Canadian charter of rights and freedoms since 1982. We have moved from a parliamentary democracy to a constitutional democracy, that is to say the power of the legislators, our powers, are restricted by a charter of rights.

Having decided as a society to equip ourselves with instruments that are constitutional, as far as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is concerned, or supra-constitutional, as far as the Quebec charter of rights and freedoms is concerned, we cannot therefore legislate against these documents and the principles they contain.

I am rather surprised to hear the speeches by the Conservatives referring only to the Supreme Court's decisions, particularly in a reference. A number of courts have, in fact, studied the issue before us today. Except for one lower court whose decision was overthrown by an appeal court, all the courts have declared the so-called traditional definition of marriage, the one which denies spouses of the same sex the right to marry, to be unconstitutional, because it does not respect the right to equality enshrined in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I will read this section, because it is of interest:

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.

I draw the House's attention to the phrase “in particular”, which indicates that this is not an exclusive list. As the law evolves, other bases of discrimination can be included, and that is what has happened since the decision in the Egan case. The Supreme Court ruled that sexual orientation was an unacceptable ground of discrimination under the constitutional law of the land. Thus, discrimination based on sexual orientation is not permitted.

Here I will offer an aside. The opposition leader cited the same ruling, the Egan case, supporting his argument that the Supreme Court had ruled on marriage only once, and wanted to keep the so-called traditional definition of marriage. I would like to send the opposition leader back to do his homework, because the judge who said that was in a minority; it was an obiter dictum to use a Latin phrase current in legal circles, which means that no court is bound by that little aside, if I could call it that, made by a justice of the Supreme Court.

The appeal courts of Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia, the supreme courts of Yukon, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba and Saskatchewan have all said, unanimously, that the equality right in section 15 requires that same sex spouses have the right to marry. Thus the legal situation in Canada is very clear: the law says that, today, same sex spouses have the right to marry.

What should we remember in all that? First, as I indicated earlier, we can only legislate on marriage. Second, according to the courts, the only way to legislate in compliance with the charter is by allowing same sex partners to get married.

What can we do about this? We could go for the notwithstanding clause, which means that we, as parliamentarians, would be saying that we have decided to suspend the rights and freedoms of some of our fellow citizens. That should be of concern to each of us personally. Are we, all of us, prepared to suspend rights that have been recognized by the courts? Personally, I am not in politics to suspend the rights and freedoms of my neighbours, friends and fellow citizens.

Those who think and say that we can legislate and restore the so-called traditional definition of marriage without using the notwithstanding clause are either in bad faith or ignorant of the law. Let me refer at this time to a letter to the leader of the opposition signed collectively by law professors, from which I would like to quote excerpts.

The letter states:

You must explain to Canadians how your plan to entrench the traditional definition of marriage will pass constitutional muster. The truth is, there is only one way to accomplish your goal: invoke the notwithstanding clause.—

The fact that you want Parliament to enact clearly unconstitutional legislation and adopt the traditional definition of marriage without using the notwithstanding clause leads us to suspect that you are playing politics with the Supreme Court and the Charter.—

It states further:

In short... [you] should either invoke the use of the notwithstanding clause, and justify this decision to Canadians, or concede that same-sex marriage is now part of Canada's legal landscape. If you intend to override Canadians' constitutional rights, you at least owe it to them to say this openly and directly. Canadians deserve better.

For 134 of Canada's top legal experts to take this extraordinary step of expressing their views not only for the leader of the opposition, but for all those against same sex marriage, means that these opponents have to be very clear. Are they prepared to suspend the rights and freedoms of their fellow citizens? Given that we are always a minority in relation to someone else, I am not in politics to suspend the rights and freedoms of anyone.

Let us talk about religion. We have heard many religion-based arguments from religious groups to uphold the so-called traditional definition of marriage. They should have the honesty to recognize that Bill C-38 applies only to civil marriage. From the beginning of this debate, from the very moment this topic appeared on the order of the day, my colleagues and I have tried to protect and balance two equally fundamental rights. The first is the total and unequivocal respect for the right to equality. I am a strong believer in the right to equality for anyone living in our society. I am also a strong believer in defending the right to freedom of religion. I do not believe that one of these rights is more important than the other. To me, the freedom of religion includes the right of any religious group to refuse to marry same sex partners if that is their wish.

There are numerous examples where this is already the case. A divorced Catholic wanting to remarry cannot get remarried in the Catholic Church, even though this is discriminatory. Why? Refusing to allow divorce is part of the Catholic Church dogma and deserves to be protected. A Catholic woman cannot become a priest. This is discriminatory on the face of it, but it is protected by the freedom of religion, which I will defend with as much vigour as I defend the right to same sex marriage.

For those who still say—in somewhat bad faith, in my opinion—that freedom of religion is threatened by Bill C-38, allow me to quote a few passages from various court rulings on this matter. I will begin by citing paragraphs 59 to 60 of the Supreme Court ruling.

It therefore seems clear that state compulsion on religious officials to perform same-sex marriages contrary to their religious beliefs would violate the guarantee of freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter. It also seems apparent that, absent exceptional circumstances which we cannot at present foresee, such a violation could not be justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

Paragraph 59 reads as follows:

The question we are asked to answer is confined to the performance of same-sex marriages by religious officials. However, concerns were raised about the compulsory use of sacred places for the celebration of such marriages and about being compelled to otherwise assist in the celebration of same-sex marriages.

The reasoning that leads us to conclude that the guarantee of freedom of religion protects against the compulsory celebration of same-sex marriages, suggests that the same would hold for these concerns.

Returning to the question before us, the Court is of the opinion that, absent unique circumstances with respect to which we will not speculate, the guarantee of religious freedom in s. 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.

In my view, this is extremely clear. It is also the opinion of other courts. I can refer to the British Columbia Court of Appeal, which quotes the decision of Justice LaForme in the Halpern case in Ontario, which I will quote in English:

Further, I find that there is no merit to the argument that the rights and interests of heterosexuals would be affected by granting same-sex couples the freedom to marry. Contrary to the assertion of Interfaith Coalition--I cannot conclude that freedom of religion would be threatened or jeopardized by legally sanctioning same-sex marriage. No religious body would be compelled to solemnize a same-sex marriage against its wishes and all religious people--of any faith--would continue to enjoy the freedom to hold and espouse their beliefs. Thus, there is no need for any infringement of the equality rights of lesbians and gays that arises because of the restrictions against same-sex marriage.

I could continue to quote from the British Columbia appeal court decision, which is quite clear on the next page. Moreover, the Ontario appeal court is more direct in its argument on freedom of religion. For those who are following the debate, I am quoting paragraphs 52 and 53.

MCCT framed its argument this way in its factum: There is no obligation on the law to recognize religious marriage as a legal institution. However, once it decides to do so (as it has done), it cannot withhold recognition to any religious marriage except in a constitutionally lawful manner.[53] In our view, this case does not engage religious rights and freedoms. 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. We do not view this case as, in any way, dealing or interfering with the religious institution of marriage.

It seems to be fairly clear that religious freedom is well protected at this time and no group could be forced to marry two persons of the same sex against its will.

It would, moreover, be worthwhile reasoning in the reverse, if I may make this aside. Today some groups, including the United Church, the Unitarians and the Reformed branch of Judaism, would like to be able to marry same sex couples, but cannot and still could not in certain jurisdictions, even if Bill C-38 were not passed. Why should these groups have the Catholic or Baptist definition of marriage imposed upon them? This is an infringement on their freedom of religion also.

I would also like to say a few words about clause 3 of Bill C-38. It raises a few questions in my mind, including whether it is not ultra vires as far as the powers of Parliament are concerned. I will go into that further in committee.

In closing, I will point out that a society is judged by the way it treats minorities. We have the responsibility to ensure that all minorities feel comfortable in our societies. I dream of the day when my children, who are seven today, will be able to live in a society where difference is not merely tolerated but welcomed and embraced. By giving and acknowledging rights to minorities, in this instance the rights of gays and lesbians, society as a whole will benefit, not just those minorities.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-38, the civil marriage act, introduced by the government.

Before addressing the subject, I just want to say that much has been made of the fact that the government is not allowing a free vote on this and that if the vote were free, the bill would not pass. This is pure nonsense. The vote will be free on this side of the House. The hon. members can vote as they see fit.

However, the government has an opinion and this is a government bill. Accordingly, cabinet will vote in favour of the bill, as will the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice, since the bill was introduced by the Minister of Justice.

There is nothing magical or coercive in this. The government will urge all hon. members to consider the merits of a vote confirming what, in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada, is a fundamental right vested in the charter.

For my part, as a mere parliamentary secretary required to vote in favour of the bill—although I know I am not the only parliamentary secretary to do so—I would have voted in favour of it regardless. Let me explain why.

We certainly cannot deny that for many this is a difficult decision for religious or personal reasons. We are talking about one of the oldest and most central institutions in our society. The topic is highly charged emotionally.

I would join my colleagues, however, in encouraging members of Parliament and indeed all Canadians to conduct the debate as it has been to date, in a calm and respectful way. The views of all members must be heard. The test of our values and our respect for tolerance and diversity will be to continue to listen with an open mind to the comments and concerns not only of those we agree with, but even more importantly, of those we do not agree with.

What strikes me as I have listened to the comments from colleagues and other members of the House, constituents, religious groups, family and friends is that the arguments being made in the House today are not unique. Let me take a brief moment to read a representative comment, “Assuming that there must be some restrictions as to marriage, we may assume also that the laws imposing such restrictions ought not to be changed without some good and clearly ascertained case”.

The speaker then went on to say that there is “no sufficient cause for the change now proposed” and that it is not unreasonable to alter the traditional law on marriage as “it is contrary to sound principles to legislate for the very few when such legislation must injuriously affect the welfare and happiness of a much larger number”. He expressed concern that the changes in legislation would result in changes to religious practices and concluded that the legislation was too important to be passed quickly without “due time for ascertaining the sentiments of the people generally”.

Debate in the House of Commons would be insufficient as his parishioners in Nova Scotia had difficulty following the goings on of the Parliament in distant Ottawa. The time was needed for the populous to get used to the idea. Parliament was rushing the issue.

Many of the arguments made today against extending civil marriage to same sex couples are eerily similar to those arguments. Those comments were drawn from well over 100 years ago, in 1890 when Canada's marriage laws were being amended to allow a widow or widower to marry the sibling of their deceased spouse. Those comments were made by the Anglican Bishop of Nova Scotia because of course this marriage was then prohibited by the church.

As would be expected, the bishop expressed concern that this extension of marriage was contrary to the Christian concept of marriage and cited numerous quotations from the Bible. He even raised the spectre of polygamy. A man who was prepared to marry his deceased wife's sister, he said, might next want to marry all of her sisters at the same time, and what would be left to stop this if we allowed him to marry more than one sibling one after the other?

In the year 2005, well over 100 years later, it is striking to me that this House has also heard every one of these arguments anew. I am fascinated by how easy it is to lose perspective as we sometimes lose history.

I hope we come to view these arguments with the same perspective now as the House finally did in 1890 when these changes to Canada's marriage laws were passed.

Nor was 1890 the last and only time that our marriage laws were amended, or these arguments were raised. As recently as 1990 the federal Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act was amended to extend access to civil marriage to those who were related by blood in second degree relationships, that is, cousins, and uncles or aunts and their nieces and nephews.

In 1990 many experts in genetics were called before a Senate committee to explain that there was no scientific basis for the perception that these relationships resulted in an increased probability of physical or mental impairment. So consistent was the evidence that the amendment passed with very little controversy.

I suspect that many of my fellow members of Parliament did not even know that the law had been changed in this regard. It is another example of the fact that civil marriage is not immutable and has been extended over time to groups previously excluded.

Indeed, Upper Canada passed its first marriage act as early as 1793. The legislation was based on the British Lord Hardwicke's Act and restricted the ability to perform marriages to the Church of England or Anglican ministers. In 1798 after considerable pressure, the ability to perform marriages was extended to ordained Presbyterian, Lutheran and Calvinist ministers, but only where they were certified, which was an extra procedure that was not necessary for the Church of England ministers.

Methodists were specifically left out until 1829 when the legislation was extended to Congregationalist, Baptist, Independent, Mennonite, Tunker, Moravian and Methodist ministers. It was not until 1857 that ministers of every religious denomination, including Jewish rabbis, were authorized to perform marriages. Other provinces and territories followed similar paths.

Civil marriage in Canada was created by legislation fairly early in Canada's west, in British Columbia in 1888, in the Northwest Territories in 1898, in Manitoba in 1932, perhaps more because of the unavailability of religious ministers. Ontario waited until 1950 to introduce civil marriage. Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, P.E.I. and Newfoundland and Labrador introduced it only in the 1960s. In each case there was controversy and concern.

Although Canada never had any laws preventing interracial marriage as there were in the United States, Canadian authors cite instances where authorities resorted to deportation and charges of seduction, as well as instances where community members resorted to torture and even murder to prevent such unnatural unions. Happily, this aspect of marriage has changed.

Similar arguments were put forward with regard to divorce laws. One member of Parliament in 1894 said:

Every Catholic is opposed... and yet the Protestant majority of this House want to impose the law upon us in this matter.... Who may tell what the future keeps in store for us?

Those words are from a distinguished member of the House, the hon. Hormidas Jeannotte, uttered in 1894 in the context of a debate on the bill of divorce for one James St.-George Dillon.

Prior to the passage of Canada's first Divorce Act in 1968, individual bills were needed to grant divorces. Certainly the concerns uttered then are again similar to those that we have heard more recently.

Senator Bellerose said in a debate in the Senate on the same bill that if divorce were granted it would “encourage the whole population of Montreal and of the province of Quebec...to separate from their wives in order to achieve the same end”. He insisted that it would be a travesty if Parliament passed the bill because “it was understood at the time of Confederation that divorce would not be granted to Catholics”.

Indeed these arguments were raised in almost every recorded debate on any change to Canadian laws on marriage or divorce and yet, as we can all plainly see, religious practices have changed very little. Some religious groups still do not recognize divorce, and the change in the civil law does not force them to do so.

Some religious groups still do not allow marriage between first cousins, and the change in the civil law does not force them to do so. In the same way, the passage of Bill C-38 would not force religious groups who do not recognize marriage between same sex partners to do so.

I fully understand that those opposed to this bill are not radicals. They are not bigots. They are not homophobic. This is a big change for our society within one lifespan. For me, and as others have said before in the House, when I grew up and first learned the law, homosexual behaviour was still prohibited by the criminal law. It is not long ago in our lifetimes, as the Prime Minister mentioned in his speech, that gay and lesbian Canadians were not welcome in the Canadian Forces, were not protected by the law from being dismissed from a job or refused service in a restaurant simply because they were gay. It is difficult for some in our society to accept that what was very recently hidden and invisible is now being accepted as a minority group deserving of protection and respect.

Let me just probe that a little. Why would this not be a group of people deserving of protection from discrimination? As the Minister of Justice has said, it is easy to believe in equality when we agree with a particular minority, but history is full of instances that demonstrate just how much a test of our beliefs and our values it is when we are talking about a minority that we do not agree with.

Let us remember that gay and lesbian individuals have been subjected to a lengthy history of discrimination and indeed persecution in many societies. It is all too recent that they were targets of Nazi Germany, where they were forced to wear pink triangles and many were housed in concentration camps. It is all too recent that the fear of outing or coming out meant the end of a career and even family life for many who were forced to live invisibly in our own Canada.

I was concerned to hear the opposition make reference to the fact that this is not about human rights, that there are no instances of real discrimination here with regard to this group. With respect, that is a denial of history and a denial of fact. I have heard from parents, as I am sure have a number of members, sad and terrible stories about children who have committed suicide because they were afraid of telling their parents about their sexual orientation, of young people cast off by their families, of schoolyard taunting and harassment, of violence directed against people only because they were suspected of being gay.

No purpose is served by comparing the history of disadvantage, of discrimination and of exclusion of different minority groups. I will be supporting this bill because I believe in the eradication of discrimination for all minority groups, and in the equal importance of the protection of the freedom of religion. The government bill acts responsibly and carefully to balance full respect for equality and the freedom of religion, basic Canadian values of such importance that they are entrenched as part of our Constitution, forever limiting the power of this House.

The opposition says that this bill should not pass because half of Canadians are not in support. I realize that Canadians are evenly divided on this issue, but what about those who are in favour? Should those opposed ask the House to turn back the hands of time, to ignore the fact that the law has already changed in eight provinces and territories because the courts have made binding decisions that limiting civil marriage to opposite sex couples is a violation of our Constitution?

Our own history shows us that those opposed will be fully protected from these changes. They will not touch their lives unless they choose to have it happen. Religious groups will retain the full ability to make their own decisions about whether to recognize these legal changes in the same way they already have with earlier changes to the civil law on marriage and divorce.

However the House has a duty, not only to those opposed but to those in favour, not only to those religious groups who do not wish to perform same sex marriages but also to those who do.

In the discussions surrounding the 1968 Divorce Act, religious groups took sides. Some urged the government not to pass the civil divorce law for Canada fearing the impact on religious practice and others who urged the government to go further and include a ground for divorce based solely on marital breakdown.

Now as then, it falls to the civil authority to legislate in a way that allows all religious groups to continue with their beliefs. The way to do that here is to pass this law, allowing religions to decide this issue for themselves and for their communities.

I respectfully submit that the bill represents the great Canadian compromise and I would urge all members to support the bill.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the authors of our Constitution, and indeed of our charter, fully contemplated the infringement of the right of gays and lesbians to be married, but it would appear that even if Bill C-38 is passed the infringement of their rights will continue because of the competing interests of the equality provisions and the rights of religious freedoms.

In her speech, the member raised an alternative. This question of religious rights and whether we can fully protect rights is also another issue to be discussed. Would the member agree that what is necessary now is for Parliament to have the time to more fully assess the broader implications of the various points that are being brought out? Also, what would be the position of the member or her party if in fact religious rights and freedoms were struck down by the court in favour of the equality rights of gays and lesbians?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important public policy issue and I am privileged to have the chance to enter the debate today. I am honoured to be the second speaker for the Conservative Party. I thank my fellow caucus members for their support. I also congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on his forthright speech on Wednesday.

I am proud to be a member of a political party that respects rights and tradition and has taken an honest, moderate, compromise position in such an important public policy debate.

I have had the opportunity to listen not only to the initial debate on Bill C-38 but, most important, to listen to my constituents in West Edmonton, Spruce Grove, Stony Plain and Parkland county.

While opinions have varied, I continue to be impressed by the honesty, candour and care with which Canadians are approaching this debate. Canadians have been thoughtful on this issue and most have come to believe that a compromise position would be the best position that the Government of Canada could take. It is, in essence, the Canadian way.

The issue of same sex marriage is not about denying rights. It is not about jeopardizing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as the Prime Minister would like us to believe. It is a complex public policy issue and one which has an impact on every Canadian.

I would like to begin my comments on a personal note and say that when I think of the people in my life who I love, some of whom happen to be gay and lesbian, I know clearly, both in my heart and in my mind, that I would never support a public policy position that violated their rights and in any way violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Supreme Court of Canada has asked us to consider a range of ideas. As legislators, it is our responsibility to consider and represent the views of Canadians in this House.

The debate has been framed in a variety of ways and each adds to the complexity of our deliberations. Today I hope to address this debate in a manner that discusses the various ways Canadians have approached Bill C-38.

The debate has been framed, in terms of rights, within the framework of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; in terms of marriage and what it means legally, as well as within the context of historical tradition and as a social institution; and in terms of religion and the interplay between church and state, not just how religion affects politics but also in terms of how politics affects the activity of churches, mosques, synagogues and temples.

The debate has also been framed as one of competing interests, the, at times, different views of younger Canadians versus older Canadians, the supposedly different views of rural versus urban Canadians, and the alleged different views of people who come from different provinces. However the reality is that this debate is important to all of us, all generations, both sexes, across the country.

In my mind the debate is primarily about rights and recognition, and about how to best recognize the rights of homosexual couples within our society while at the same time upholding and respecting institutions that have great social importance to Canada, such as the traditional definition of marriage. In short, it is about responding and respecting the competing interests in this debate in a reasonable, compassionate and moderate way.

In my comments today I would like to touch upon a few subjects. First, I would like to review, not just the Supreme Court reference, but all the court cases that have brought us to where we are on the same sex marriage issue.

Second, I will focus on the main point of my address, which is that in any debate it is Parliament's job to find a compromise and consensus that defends rights and, specifically in this debate, offers recognition to homosexual couples and takes into account the views of Canadians.

Third, I would like to discuss the legislation that other countries around the world have brought forward after engaging in this very exercise that we are about to undertake. In addition, I will refer to the legislation Alberta brought forward two years ago to extend rights and privileges to same sex couples.

Finally, I would like to specifically focus on the very ways in which Canadians have discussed same sex marriage as a rights issue.

Marriage cases ruling in favour of same sex marriage began in 2002. In 2002, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman represented a charter infringement. La Cour supérieure du Québec also ruled that the characterization of marriage as a heterosexual institution represented a violation of charter equality rights.

In 2003, the British Columbia Court of Appeal reversed a lower court judgment that upheld the common law bar to same sex marriage.

On September 16, 2003, an opposition motion expressing Parliament's support for the traditional definition of marriage was defeated in the House of Commons by a vote of 137 to 132. It was only four years earlier, in June 1999, however, that the exact same motion passed, with large support from many Liberals for the traditional definition of marriage.

After several provincial courts had ruled that the traditional definition of marriage was unconstitutional, the Liberal government prepared draft legislation that would permit same sex marriages, but instead of allowing the House of Commons to vote on the legislation, the Liberals referred it to the Supreme Court and asked the following questions.

Question 1: Is the annexed Proposal for an Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes within the exclusive legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada? If not, in what particular or particulars, and to what extent?

Question 2: If the answer to question 1 is yes, is section 1 of the proposal, which extends capacity to marry to persons of the same sex, consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Question 3: Does the freedom of religion guaranteed by paragraph 2(a) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protect religious officials from being compelled to perform a marriage between two persons of the same sex that is contrary to their religious beliefs?

In January 2004 the government referred an additional question to the Supreme Court. Question 4 asked the following: Is the opposite-sex requirement for marriage for civil purposes, as established by the common law and set out for Quebec in section 5 of the Federal Law-Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 1, consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

The fourth question was an important question. The Prime Minister had hoped that the Supreme Court would return with the imperative that Parliament must pass a law sanctioning marriage for homosexual couples. However, the Supreme Court did not do that and mandated Parliament to examine, debate and potentially legislate on this issue.

In its decision released on December 9, 2004, the Supreme Court said that the federal government has the jurisdiction to redefine marriage to include same sex couples.

It also said that churches are protected under the Charter of Rights in maintaining the traditional definition of marriage, but that legislation that would specifically protect religious organizations is beyond the constitutional power of the federal government.

What this means is that the federal government determines the definition of marriage but the provinces determine how a couple can marry.

The court did not answer the question of whether the traditional definition of marriage in the common law violates the Charter of Rights. Instead of declaring the traditional definition of marriage unconstitutional, the court has made it clear that it is Parliament that must define the word marriage.

This is where we are today. We have received direction from the Supreme Court of Canada that if Parliament wants to change the definition of marriage it would be within our purview to do so. We are free to define it as a union between a man and a woman or as between any two persons. Either definition has been deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court.

However, the courts did not force the vote or the debate that is before us, because it did not compel Parliament to change the definition of marriage. It simply stated that if Parliament wanted to, it could. This is a political decision that the Liberal government has taken on its very own.

While the Liberals have attempted to shroud their politics by misquoting and misusing the language of rights, I, along with the Leader of the Opposition, will seek the moderate compromise that Canadians are asking for.

We may ask why a compromise is so important. Many members have suggested that deciding upon whether or not to change the definition of marriage is difficult; it involves issue of personal conscience, religion and the views of our constituents as well as perceptions of the traditions and institutions of our society.

Because of the difficulty of this issue, I am proud to be a member of a party that has allowed a free vote on this issue. It is an issue of personal conscience and one of accountability to my constituents, and it is important that members are granted the ability to vote in as free a manner as possible without the threat of recrimination by party leaders.

It is wise, and it is also decent, that this party has allowed a free vote. Nobody in this party finds themselves in an uncomfortable position due to this legislation. Members are accountable not to their party but to their own consciences and to their constituents. It is a position that I wish all members of the House could share.

Importantly, the majority of people who oppose this legislation favour the insurance and the protection of equal rights for homosexual couples and they favour formal state recognition of committed homosexual relationships.

So at some point we have to ask ourselves why the government is not following the lead of most Canadians and searching for a middle ground that will protect the rights of all Canadians equally, recognize homosexual unions and respect tradition at the same point. The government, after all, likes to talk about Canada's ability to broker resolutions. It likes to talk about Canadians as being the sort of people who search for compromise and search for the middle position.

Canadians have done that. The Leader of the Opposition has done that. The government, on the other hand, has labelled these Canadians intolerant and bigoted. This language is unhelpful, and the government is fighting the national consensus on this issue.

The government has refused to look beyond its own vision on this issue. It has refused to seek the middle ground, and in doing so, it has refused to take seriously the considerations and views of Canadians.

The Leader of the Opposition is the only leader in the House who has discussed the matter with Canadians and has searched for a compromise in order to give all Canadians a voice.

In December, the Leader of the Opposition announced three proposals for effectively considering the marriage question. These are as follows. The first proposal would retain the traditional definition of marriage. The second proposal would ensure that same sex couples are afforded equal spousal benefits. The third proposal would include substantive provisions in the legislation to protect not only religious organizations but also to protect public officials who have objections due to reasons of religion or conscience.

With regard to the first proposal, I am proud to be voting the wishes of my constituents, one of which is to support and maintain the traditional definition of marriage. I am also proud to be able to vote in favour of providing equal rights to gay and lesbian couples, something my constituents have also been clear in their support for.

My constituents reflect the majority of Canadians who believe in a balanced approach: legislation which accords equal benefits and status to same sex couples in a recognized union, with an understanding that to do this we do not need to change the definition of marriage.

There is no need or imperative to reject the middle ground put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. I support the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court has not said that we must change the definition of marriage. The Supreme Court has not said that the traditional definition of marriage is in violation of the charter. The Supreme Court has not said that recognition of same sex marriage as a union is in violation of the charter. The Supreme Court has said none of this despite the arguments put forward by the government.

With regard to the third proposal, by protecting the rights of religious institutions Parliament can support the rights of churches, mosques, synagogues and temples to recognize, perform and solemnize marriages on their own terms.

Parliament can ensure that churches have the right to privately and publicly preach their beliefs related to marriage. Parliament can ensure that justices of the peace and civil marriage commissioners are not forced to solemnize marriages against their own consciences. Parliament can also preserve the charitable and economic benefits that churches enjoy as public institutions and recognize the right of public officials to act in accordance with their own beliefs.

I know that these proposals will not make everybody happy. Some will want a strong endorsement of gay and lesbian marriage. Others will want a vote that recognizes traditional marriages only and with no recognition of gay and lesbian relationships whatsoever. Each of these positions is born of strong convictions, making compromise the only tenable position that we can take.

The need for a compromise stems from the need to reconcile the interests of societal beliefs, law and tradition in a manner that all the majority of Canadians would recognize as just. This should be Parliament's goal.

The position taken by the Leader of the Opposition is the compromise position. It is the moderate position and it accords with the general thoughts and beliefs of the majority of Canadians. While there are Canadians on both sides of this issue, we live in a society that prides itself on the ability to compromise and find solutions which take the concerns and positions of everyone into account. That is what we are attempting to do by putting forward a compromise position.

Some across the way would charge that if we do not change the definition of marriage we will in fact be denying rights to homosexual Canadians. Several European countries have shown that this is not the case.

A quick survey of countries in Europe shows that while the Netherlands and Belgium have adopted same sex marriage legislation, registered domestic partnerships are available in Sweden, Spain, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland and parts of Italy. Civil pacts are available in France. Finally, the Czech Republic, Portugal and Switzerland are considering introducing legislation to provide protections, rights and benefits to gay and lesbian individuals in committed relationships.

Thus, other nations, and more important, other western democratic and constitutional nations, have found ways to deal with this issue. Their solutions are middle ground solutions and they are accepted by a consensus of the population in those countries.

The questions of rights in the states I have mentioned above have been settled by the legislation and arrangements which govern same sex relationships. The laws that are in place in these European countries are similar to the amendments put forward by the Leader of the Opposition.

The Leader of the Opposition has also called attention to recent legal developments in New Zealand. In New Zealand, which does not allow discrimination based on sexual orientation, courts still ruled that the opposite sex requirement for marriage was not a basic human right.

Closer to home, the Government of Alberta has also found a new arrangement that both retains the traditional definition of marriage and provides benefits, rights and privileges to homosexual couples. Alberta's Adult Interdependent Relationships Act balances the desire to promote the concept of marriage as an institution and the need for fairness for those who choose non-marital but interdependent relationships.

In this arrangement, Alberta defends all human rights and provides non-married couples the benefits that couples in a traditional marriage enjoy, so it is clear that there are arrangements that can be designed to both protect rights and retain the definition of marriage as that between one man and one woman.

Today marriage is seen as an institution that involves a union between one man and one woman. Societal institutions are by their very nature the products of convention and they owe their existence to society's recognition of the importance they hold. Those who see same sex marriage as a right are attempting to change this institution.

However, given the competing interests within society, the differing outlooks that citizens bring to the political arena, and the often difficult decisions regarding competing visions of what our laws ought to be like, it is our obligation as legislators to find a middle ground.

The key distinction here is recognition. Since 1977 gay and lesbian Canadians have benefited from increasing legal and legislative measures which have ensured that they are afforded equal status in the eyes of the law. During the 1990s, gay and lesbian couples in committed relationships or in “marriage-like” relationships, to use the B.C. court's term, have seen an increase in the rights and benefits that they are afforded.

In short, by the beginning of the 21st century, gay and lesbian Canadians in committed relationships could not legally be denied practical spousal rights and benefits. In this sense, the rights debate has been solved.

The debate over allowing gays and lesbians to access the institution of marriage, on the other hand, has not been resolved.

As I said earlier, the Supreme Court stated that the definition of marriage is a parliamentary responsibility, meaning both that it is federal in jurisdiction and that it is up to Parliament to decide whether or not the institution of marriage should be changed to allow access to gay and lesbian couples.

While the court did not rebuke lower courts that declared the traditional definition of marriage to be unconstitutional, it also did not endorse the position that the current definition of marriage is unconstitutional.

By suggesting that Parliament should decide, the Supreme Court made an implicit statement about the difference between rights and recognition, namely, that courts exist to protect and uphold the rights of groups and individuals and Parliament exists to express the national will regarding how those rights will be enshrined in legislation and recognized.

Same sex marriage, in a nutshell, is a recognition issue. As stated earlier, the rights component of this debate has largely been resolved and few Canadians are of the mind to reverse those decisions. Their opinion reflects their belief in equality for all Canadians under the law. They merely want the word “marriage” to remain as the union between a man and a woman.

The rights issue has been settled and the equality provisions continue to be settled. Simply put, the law sees heterosexual relationships and same sex relationships as equally significant and equally able to access spousal rights and privileges. The Conservative Party supports this view.

The question, therefore, is not about rights or equality. It is about marriage and whether Canadians would like to change the definition of marriage. It is about how Canadians would like to recognize legally equal, committed same sex relationships.

It is up to Parliament to decide the manner in which these rights are recognized. We believe these rights should be recognized fully, and all of the rights of marriage ought to be formally recognized in civil unions.

However, I believe that we do need to find a compromise by recognizing committed relationships between gays and lesbians as civil unions and retaining the traditional definition of marriage.

The majority of the letters that I have received from my constituents ask me to vote to retain the traditional definition of marriage. The majority of those same letters also ask that I work to protect the human and spousal rights of gay and lesbian individuals and couples. I agree with this position.

During this debate the Liberals have attempted to hide their politics by invoking the language of rights and accusing our party of not believing in rights. This could not be further from the truth. The Conservative Party has approached this issue as one where a reasonable compromise can be found. We have spoken honestly with Canadians and it is my hope that the House follows our lead.

I am proud to work with my constituents on such an important issue. I am proud that I can vote freely on their behalf.

Definition of Marriage Act

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Not at all, as my colleague says. He was part of that flawed process as well.

So we moved in the dying days of the last Parliament to correct that and ensure that all private members' legislation was votable. We moved the onus from the private member, from the individual member of Parliament, to the House. The committee, in representing the House, would have to prove that it should not be votable rather than the member having to prove that it should be.

Yet that process broke down in this one individual case. Why is that?

Why is that on a subject that is this important? We see that now with Bill C-38, the legislation now before the House. On a subject that is so very important to the foundations of this country, why is it that this particular bill was deemed non-votable?

I would contend that it is simply this. We know it is controversial. It is highly divisive for the country, for the nation, and this government feared that it might pass, because my colleague's legislation reaffirming the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others preceded this government's bumbling efforts on this front.

At the time the Liberals were hoping that the reference to the Supreme Court would come back and do their job for them, because that is the way this government operates. The Liberals want the courts to do their work for them if it is an issue that is at all controversial rather than taking on the leadership mantle that should come with government.

I say shame on them. I hope the viewing public clearly understands what happened here: that these three parties that profess to believe in democracy worked together to ensure that my colleague's legislation did not come to a vote. They continued it today when he asked for unanimous consent to make this votable. This is the only bill that has been made non-votable.

I have only a few minutes left and I want to deal with the subject that is before us, rather than the process I have spoken of. On Fridays in my riding I have a weekly newspaper column. This week I wrote for the very first time on this subject. I want to read for the House the column that is running today in the newspapers in my riding of Prince George—Peace River. It is about choices. It states:

How do I best convey to you, the constituents of Prince George--Peace River, the position I have taken on one of the most controversial issues ever to be addressed by Canada's Parliament?

Before I continue, please allow me to unequivocally state that I intend to vote NO to Bill C-38, the federal Liberal government's legislation that would legalize same-sex marriage.

Why? I considered listing some of the legal arguments, articles and research I've read on the subject. I could discuss constitutional history and legal precedence...and at some point in this debate, which is expected to last several weeks, I may.

For now, however, I want to discuss choices. As I've told my children ever since they were knee-high to a grasshopper...“life is all about choices”. It is the choices we make in life that determine our destiny.

So it is for governments as well. The Liberals chose not to appeal a court ruling that declared the current definition of marriage unconstitutional. The Liberals chose not to support a Canadian Alliance motion in 2004 calling upon Parliament to re-affirm a commitment it made to a 1999 Reform Party of Canada motion vowing to defend the traditional definition of marriage.

Now, disastrously, for the preservation of freedom of religious expression in our country, the Prime Minister has chosen to relegate the historical, ages-old, traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others, to the scrap heap of history.

Every Prime Minister strives to leave a legacy...being forever known as the executioner of traditional marriage and freedom of religious expression may well be this Prime Minister's.

[He] contends the Supreme Court dictated the need to legalize same-sex marriage. Yet the Court not only refused to answer the federal government's reference on the constitutionality of traditional marriage, but made it clear that it was up to Parliament to decide--to make a choice--on this important social policy matter.

The Liberals promise they can protect religious freedoms. Yet, the Supreme Court ruled the provision in the government's draft legislation regarding the right of religious officials to refuse to perform gay marriages, is outside the jurisdiction of the federal Parliament.

[The Prime Minister] has made a conscious choice to legalize same-sex marriage--

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the private member's bill of the member for Fundy Royal. I do not think it will come as any surprise to anyone in the House that I am not supportive of the bill.

I appreciate the concerns of the member though and his disappointment that his bill will not come to a vote. While I do not necessarily support his argument around that, I understand the frustration of a member of the House who introduces private member's legislation that he or she feels strongly about and hopes for the day when it will receive a debate in the House.

I did that myself. I have a bill on the order paper on the question of marriage. It is probably exactly opposite to the intent of the private member's bill of the member for Fundy Royal. However, my bill will not come to a debate now. Events have overtaken it. Court decisions have overtaken it. I appreciate that my bill is now somewhat redundant given the fact we are debating Bill C-38 in the House. However, it was important for me to introduce the bill. When I did it, it was done so it would put pressure on the government to stop its delaying and get on with the important business of getting the issue before Parliament and before the country.

That is one of the reasons why we introduce a private member's bills. I hope I helped move that along with my bill. I regret it will not have its day here in the House, but I am happy that Bill C-38 and the issue is firmly on the parliamentary agenda now.

I have real trouble with the bill on a personal level. It seeks to limit my participation in Canadian society and the participation of other gay and lesbian people in Canadian society. It says that there is a key institution of our society, a key institution which we in Parliament have responsibility for which is out of our reach and something in which we are limited in our participation. I cannot accept that.

Hundreds of gay and lesbian couples have now been legally married in Canada. That is thousands of Canadians. Thousands more Canadians have supported them in taking that step. Lots of clergy people as well have supported them in doing that. Many of those couples were married in churches and perhaps synagogues as well. It is something that has changed in our society, but the bill would seek to limit that positive change for many Canadians.

I do not think the fact that gay and lesbian couples can now be married in seven provinces and one territory has really changed our society all that much. I do not believe it has changed our understanding of marriage. I do not believe it has limited the ability, or commitments, or obligations, or understanding of marriage or traditions of marriage that heterosexual couples celebrate regularly in our society. Life is going on. I do not think society has collapsed because we now have hundreds of married gay and lesbian couples in Canada.

The bill claims to be about the definition of marriage, and we often talk lately about the definition of marriage. I do not think that is really what we are talking about. We are talking about something much more limited than that. We are talking about eligibility for marriage. If we were talking about the definition of marriage, we would be talking about things like love, commitment, faithfulness, responsibility, security and the care for children. All those kinds of things I think define marriage, not necessarily the gender of the couple who presents itself to be married.

We miss the point in a very particular and important way if we limit ourselves to considering the gender of the couple and not considering these other very important qualities about marriage. Love is something that is in short supply in our world. Commitment is something that is often challenged in our world. Faithfulness is sometimes very undervalued in our world. People need to be encouraged to take responsibility for their lives and for their relationships in our world.

All of us crave security and the creative space that builds for us and our children. In gay and lesbian and heterosexual relationships, we all know that having children in a secure setting does many wonderful things for them. Those are the kinds of things, if we were truly talking about defining marriage, we would be debating. What we are talking about is something much more limited.

I want to read a quote from the Right Reverend Peter Short, the Moderator of the United Church of Canada, who wrote an article called “Let No One Be Turned Away”. In that article Reverend Short describes marriage. He states:

Marriage lays a foundation, constructs a framework, and builds a house for love. Since constant perfect love is impossible (that's another story) marriage provides a structure, a habit of being together, a promise of faithfulness to carry us through those times when we know we must act with love but do not feel like loving. Eventually the house becomes a home, the wedding becomes a marriage, and the relationship becomes a habit of the heart.

Marriage functions the way any good habit or discipline functions. It helps us hang on through short-term ambiguity on the way to long-term freedom. The ambiguity is in the conflict between feeling and commitment. The freedom is in knowing there's a place to stand beneath the ambiguity--common ground. Common ground is not the same as having things in common, but you find that out in time.

It is important to remember that we are talking about this kind of commitment in this discussion. I do not think there is anything in the statement by Reverend Short that is not accessible to gay and lesbian couples. This is exactly what we hope for in our relationships and in our marriages. We need to remember that there is nothing in being gay or lesbian which limits our participation in that kind of love, relationship and marriage.

I am concerned when I hear discussion, some of which we have had this afternoon, that seems legalistic and very removed from the real lives of Canadians. It is hard for me as a gay man to listen to something which so affects on such an intimate level our lives and loves being debated in an abstract and legalistic kind of way. I remind people that when we are talking about this issue, we are talking about real people and real commitments.

I do not believe marriage between gay and lesbian people will change the lives of heterosexual couples in any way. I do not think it changes the commitments they make. It does not change the traditions they celebrate when they are being married.

I remember there was a demonstration outside our office about marriage several years ago. My predecessor, Svend Robinson, went out to speak to the people who were opposed the change in the definition of marriage. He asked rhetorically if any of them believed that his marrying his partner would change the other people's relationships with their husbands or wives. He further asked people to put up their hands if they thought his marriage to his partner, if he chose to do that, would change the other people's marriages. Not one of the people, who were there to oppose changing the definition of marriage to include gay and lesbian people, put up their hand. That is a significant indication.

I do not believe this change challenges religious freedom in Canada. If I thought that for one second, I would be opposed to doing it. I am an active member of the United Church of Canada. I will not support anything that I believe tilts us in the direction of limiting religious freedom in Canada. I do not believe raising this issue does that. I do not believe it is a slippery slope to take us toward that. I just do not think it is in the cards.

There is another thing I want to challenge. We hear that this debate, discussion and changes are being forced on us by decisions of the court and that somehow this is undemocratic. I do not think that is the case at all. This change is before us now because couples want to be married and want to uphold the traditions of marriage. They strongly support the institution and champion it. They went before the courts to say that they wanted to be married, that they wanted to uphold that tradition. That is why this issue is before us, not because of some legal process or some sort of judicial activism. It is because gay and lesbian couples decided to challenge the law and seek our full equality in society.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, let me say from the outset that I am against this motion, even it is not votable.

The Bloc Québécois finds that two equally important essential values need to be protected and they are equality and freedom of religion. Both these values are protected under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Bloc Québécois wants to allow same sex partners to get married if they so wish, in accordance with their right to equality, while protecting the rights of religious organizations such as churches, synagogues, temples or mosques to adhere to their beliefs and refuse to perform religious marriages between same sex partners. In our opinion, this is part of religious freedom.

When we look at the current law, we look at the Supreme Court ruling. In this matter, four questions had been submitted by the government to the highest court in Canada, as follows. First: does the federal government have the exclusive jurisdiction to define marriage? Second: does the charter allow religious groups not to perform marriages they feel go against their religious beliefs? Third: is the definition of same sex marriage constitutional? Fourth: is the traditional definition of marriage, in other words the union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, constitutional?

In its ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction over the definition of marriage and clearly established that the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over the solemnization of marriage.

Adopting Quebec's position, the court mentioned that Parliament was encroaching on provincial jurisdictions with its draft provision to uphold the right of churches to refuse to perform marriages contrary to their religious beliefs. This falls under the solemnization of marriage, which is a jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

A central element of the court's decision was its recognition that same sex marriage is consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It also said that compelling religious officials to perform a marriage between two persons of the same sex that is contrary to their religious beliefs would be an unjustified violation of their religious freedom.

As for the fourth question, the court declined to answer it, citing respect for the acquired rights of same sex couples who have relied upon the finality of the decisions obtained in lower courts. On this subject, the court wrote:

There is no precedent for answering a reference question—this is paragraph 68—which mirrors issues already disposed of in lower courts—

The court is speaking here of decisions where an appeal was available but not pursued.

The court also mentioned that the Attorney General of Canada conceded, publicly and frequently, that the common law definition of marriage was inconsistent with s. 15(1) of the Charter and was not justifiable under s. 1. Thus, the court decided that answering question no. 4 would jeopardize the government's explicit goal of harmonizing civil marriage rights in all of Canada. Thus we see that moral questions are not within the scope of the decision Parliament must make.

Moreover, to demonstrate the way this issue can be understood, one of my constituents has written to me, saying that he is a practising Catholic, very involved in his community and his church. He wanted me to know that a number of Catholics think the Church is not moving in the right direction by not recognizing the rights of same sex couple to marry in a religious ceremony. I replied that, while I was sympathetic to his idea, it was not my place as a member of Parliament, or the place of Parliament, to pass judgment on debates within the Catholic Church or the Protestant churches or Muslim or Jewish congregations. That is the domain of moral doctrine.

What we are being asked to do as parliamentarians is to decide whether the state will give same sex couples the same right to marry as opposite sex couples have. So, this is a legal issue and we should not get involved in an internal religious debate, whether it is with the Catholic Church or any other church.

I should also point out that, in terms of the rulings made by the courts of various provinces, eight courts, in seven provinces and in the Yukon, ruled that preventing same sex couples from getting married violated their right to equality, as provided under the charter, and that such a violation of a protected right could not be justified in a free and democratic society.

The federal government decided not to appeal these decisions from the courts of appeal. These courts of appeal form a majority, since they represent seven provinces, including Quebec, and the Yukon. However, the federal government referred the issue to the Supreme Court to get its opinion. Earlier, I presented the court's opinion on the four questions asked by the government.

So, the definition of marriage, as reviewed by these courts, is the union of two persons for life, to the exclusion of all others, without any reference to the sexual orientation of these persons. Consequently, even if the bill introduced by the Minister of Justice were defeated in the House—something I do not wish at all—the right of same sex couples to marry would be maintained in those jurisdictions where the courts have already ruled on this issue, including Quebec.

I think we need to be very clear. I disagree with the motion because of the issue that we are debating here. I agree that this motion should not be a votable item, since it violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What we have to decide here, without exceeding our jurisdiction, is whether the right to equality necessarily involves the possibility for same sex couples that so wish to have access to a civil institution, namely marriage.

In this context, the member will understand that even if his motion is not votable, the Bloc Québécois in no way supports it. We will have the opportunity to examine in greater detail the provisions of Bill C-38, introduced by the Minister of Justice. The leader of the Bloc Québécois outlined his position on this bill during the speech he made this week.

Still, I remind the House that the Bloc Québécois is allowing a free vote on Bill C-38, even if I and most of my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois intend to vote in favour of this bill. So, we in no way support this motion before us.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, the opposition has chosen to use some of the important time set aside in the House for a private member's bill to discuss yet another bill respecting the definition of marriage.

Does the proposal contained in Bill C-268 provide the House with any additional insight that could move the debate forward to constructive options? I regret to say that it does not. The bill has been ruled non-votable as unconstitutional in its approach. It is just another iteration of earlier bills which sought to reinstate the opposite sex requirements for civil marriage.

In his comments the hon. member referred to the opposition day vote in 1999. I was one of the 55 members who voted against that opposition day motion which would have had the effect of restricting marriage to people of the opposite sex. I did so for the very reason that one could foresee that the courts would apply section 15 of the charter and would hold that requirement discriminatory. Much has been made about it but it was foreseeable from a reading of the charter and a clear understanding of it.

Under our Constitution, the courts are mandated to review legislation to determine whether it meets charter requirements. The courts in seven provinces, namely British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, and one territory, Yukon, have now determined that the requirement that a spouse be of the opposite sex no longer satisfies the equality guarantees under section 15 of the charter. It is discriminatory towards Canadian gays and lesbians who want to get involved to the same extent as any other Canadian. It is discriminatory to deny them access to the civil institution of marriage.

The courts also clarified that their decision applies exclusively to civil marriage. They clarified that the charter also guarantees freedom of religion and that any religious group is free to continue to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.

As members of the House are well aware, the government does not believe that this important matter should be decided by the courts in a patchwork of decisions across the country. The government believes that the courts are correct in their legal conclusions, but at the same time the government also fervently believes that only Parliament has the ability to look at the complete picture in designing a Canada-wide approach.

Courts and Parliament each have their distinct and complementary roles under our Constitution. That is why the government set in place last year an approach to this important question that involved a full and formal debate in Parliament.

Members will recall that in June 2003 following the Court of Appeal decisions in Ontario and British Columbia, the government announced that it would be drafting a bill and referring the matter to the Supreme Court.

The government did draft a bill that contained two important provisions. The first defined marriage as “the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others”. The second stated, “Nothing in this act affects the freedom of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs”.

The bill currently before the House, Bill C-38, is based on the bill that was referred to the Supreme Court of Canada. The bill ensures full respect for both of the important fundamental principles identified by the courts: equality based on personal characteristics like race, language, sexual orientation; and freedom of religion.

To further ensure that the government was correct in law that the bill would not infringe on freedom of religion, one of the specific questions asked of the Supreme Court was: Does the freedom of religion guarantee in paragraph 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protect religious officials from being compelled to perform a marriage between two persons of the same sex that is contrary to their religious beliefs? The court answered in the affirmative.

Last year, during the third week of October, the Supreme Court of Canada heard the arguments concerning the reference. The governments and 27 out of the 28 intervening parties, including the provincial governments of Quebec and Alberta, presented their positions over the course of two days. These parties presented a wide variety of opinions on many topics.

The government's purpose in referring the draft bill to the Supreme Court was to clarify the options available to the members of this House under the legislative framework of the charter. This ensures a constructive and informative debate during the parliamentary process. The purpose of the reference was not to bypass the parliamentary process.

The members of this House now have before them an analysis of legal topics by the Supreme Court. They also have an understanding of the constitutional impacts and the legislative framework in connection with the government's preferred approach with this bill now before them. In addition, the hon. members have the affirmation by the court that religious groups will be free to apply their own meaning to marriage, in accordance with their beliefs. This affirms the government's legal position.

The bill before us today does not do that. For starters, we already know that its first provision, which seeks to once more restrict the definition of marriage to a man and a woman, is unconstitutional under the law. Indeed, the bill was drafted in such a way as to completely ignore the events and debates of the last few years on this point.

It is as if the hon. member for Fundy Royal actually believes that legislation can be legitimately used to turn back the clock, ignoring the same definition included in clause 2 has been declared unconstitutional, not once but separately in binding court decisions in eight jurisdictions of the 13 jurisdiction in Canada. This is an effective means for this Parliament to find a workable solution to a real complex and important question.

The only way that the capacity to marry can now be restricted once more to opposite sex couples is for Parliament to deliberately decide to invoke for the very first time in history the notwithstanding clause in section 33 of the charter. That clause enables governments to expressly declare that a statute shall operate notwithstanding that it violates one of more of the fundamental rights and freedoms set out in the Charter.

In other words, in order to do so Parliament would first have to publicly acknowledge that it is aware of the discriminatory nature of the law but are insisting that in any event the law be proclaimed despite the fact that it deliberately discriminates against minority rights.

I do not believe in discriminating against any minority, let alone using the notwithstanding clause for the first time by the Parliament of Canada, not to protect our national security, not to ensure our collective safety but to deny to gay and lesbian couples who wish to express the same degree of commitment in a way that is available to any other couple; the ability to enter into and formalize one of the most meaningful relationships in life. Deliberately discriminating against one minority cannot be done without potentially placing minorities at risk and is inconsistent with the Canadian Constitution.

I am a Franco-Ontarian and, as such, a member of a language minority. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects such minorities, and I am grateful that it does. If gays and lesbians were to be removed from the protection of the charter, under the pretext that this is not a legal issue but a moral one, this would mean that, in the future, a similar application could be made to remove language minorities from the protection of the charter, under the pretext that it is too expensive. Consequently, it becomes an economic issue.

Therefore, we have a choice before us. Either go forward with Bill C-38, the actual bill which is before the House, make the law uniform for all of Canada or go back to the past using the notwithstanding clause.

The proposed solution in the bill before us today does not exist, and that is why it was declared non-votable by the House procedural committee.

Debate on Bill C-38 is the right way to proceed. Whatever one's position may be on this issue, it is better than moving ahead today with a debate on an approach that is a hollow sham and is no longer possible in the Canadian constitutional and legal framework.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy, NB]

moved that Bill C-268, an act to confirm the definition of marriage and to preserve ceremonial rights, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker,I rise today to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-268, an act to confirm the definition of marriage.

I was first elected to this House in June 2004. As a new member of Parliament, I was pleased when I was drawn fourth overall in the lottery on private members' business. Under the rules for private members' business this meant that I would be able to introduce a bill and have it considered, debated and voted on by members of Parliament.

I must say, however, that my work on this bill has been a reality check and illustrates to me that the democratic deficit our current Prime Minister had promised to slay is indeed alive and well.

My bill is unique in that it is relevant to the debate we are having in this House today on the Liberals' plan to change the definition of marriage. It is also unique because it is the only private member's bill in this session that has been deemed non-votable.

This private member's bill, like the government's Bill C-38, provides a legislated definition of marriage. However, unlike Bill C-38, my bill defines marriage as it always has been known: as the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.

However, my bill will not be voted on, as the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs ruled that my bill would be non-votable. The Liberals prevented my bill from bill being voted on so that this issue would only come forward to this House in their timing.

This constitutes, in my opinion, a gross interference by the Liberal government in private members' business. Private members' business is limited to only a few hours per week and there is already too little opportunity for members of Parliament to represent their constituents in this House.

To say the least, I also found the rationale for the committee's rejection of votable status for my bill to be without merit. I find that the process that led them to the decision was certainly flawed.

First, the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business met in private and in camera, without any representation from me, and acted as judge, jury and executioner of my bill by declaring it non-votable.

I of course appealed this decision to the full membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, where the membership also prevented my bill from being made votable. Their flawed argument was that my bill was clearly unconstitutional.

To suggest that my private members' bill is clearly in violation of the Constitution is to take on the role of justices of the court, not parliamentarians. It is the constitutionality of the traditional definition of marriage that was the very issue in the reference the Attorney General of Canada put forward to the Supreme Court on January 28 of last year. The reference question states:

Is the opposite-sex requirement for marriage for civil purposes, as established by the common law and set out for Quebec in section 5 of the Federal Law-Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 1, consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? If not, in what particular or particulars and to what extent?

The committee prejudged the outcome of this important reference to the highest court of the land and therefore acted contemptuous to both the Supreme Court of Canada and to the Attorney General of Canada.

I argued at committee that if the constitutionality of even the common law definition of marriage, let alone a legislated definition of marriage, were clear, then there would be no need to ask the Supreme Court of Canada the question.

The Attorney General had put a bona fide question to the court. Why would the Attorney General waste taxpayers' money and the high court's time to answer a question that clearly had already been answered?

Under our judicial system, a decision of a provincial court only has application within the province in which that decision was rendered. The only court decision that applies to every province is that of the Supreme Court of Canada. In fact, this is the definition most recently upheld by Parliament as part of the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act.

In this respect, the ruling of the committee was in breach of the law passed by Parliament four years ago.

The definition of marriage contained in the bill is the same one that is the law in four provinces and two territories in this country. Further, British Columbia and Ontario courts of appeals went to great lengths to emphasize that they were changing the common law definition of marriage and that there was no legislated definition of marriage for them to deal with.

Bill C-268 contains a legislated definition of marriage with which the courts have not yet dealt.

Oftentimes a provincial court of appeal decision is overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada in favour of the reasoning of the original court. In both B.C. and Ontario there are lower court decisions that found the traditional definition of marriage was in fact constitutional. Further, the Supreme Court of Canada has never indicated in any ruling that the traditional definition of marriage was unconstitutional. To the contrary, when the Supreme Court ruled in the Egan case, Justice La Forest 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.

He went on to say, “In this sense marriage is by nature heterosexual”.

In spite of all this, the committee found that my bill was clearly unconstitutional.

The Standing Orders do not say that a bill is non-votable because it may, could, likely, or possibly violates the Constitution. The threshold is much higher. A bill must clearly violate the Constitution to be deemed non-votable. I submit that in light of the facts that I have already set out, my bill fell far short of that threshold.

In the meantime, since the committee ruled my bill non-votable, the Supreme Court has finally rendered its decision in the reference case. In the case it did not in fact find that the traditional definition of marriage was unconstitutional. As a matter of fact, it did not answer the very question that was put to it by the attorney general and therefore it put the issue back into the hands of Parliament. This is exactly what my bill would have done.

The great irony of my bill and the government's bill is that the Supreme Court ruling did not in any way whatsoever indicate that the traditional definition of marriage contained in my bill was unconstitutional. However, the court did rule that the government's bill, specifically the clause that purports to protect religious freedoms, was in fact ultra vires and unconstitutional.

I think it is important for members to remember, and for Canadians to understand, that allowing my bill to proceed through our democratic process in no way indicates support for the substance of the bill, but failure to do so clearly indicates suppression of democracy. By denying parliamentarians the opportunity to vote on my bill, we are subverting the limited democratic gains that we have made in the House.

We must remember that it is the role of Parliament to legislate, not to determine the validity of legislation. That role in our system is filled by the courts. It is the responsibility of Parliament to deal with matters of important social policy.

At every turn the Liberal government has sought to avoid meaningful public consultation and debate on the very important and foundational issue of marriage. When the House of Commons considered the issue of same sex marriage in 1999, not that long ago, the then justice minister and current Deputy Prime Minister clearly stated to Canadians, “The government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages”.

At that time the government supported a motion which promised to use all necessary means to defend the traditional definition of marriage. In a true free vote the motion passed the House of Commons by a margin of 215 to 55, with the current Prime Minister and most of the then cabinet voting in favour of the traditional definition of marriage.

We fast forward a few years and today the position of the government stands exactly opposite to the position it promised to uphold in 1999. Instead of using all necessary means to uphold the traditional definition of marriage, the government is relying on a whipped vote to force cabinet ministers and some parliamentary secretaries to support legislation that would change the definition of marriage. Simultaneously we know that intense pressure is being applied on the government's own backbenches to ensure a favourable outcome for the government's controversial legislation.

What occurred between 1999 and 2005? How can something that is not considered a fundamental right in 1999 suddenly be so promoted in 2005?

The simple answer is that over the past five years the government has slowly, methodically and deliberately circumvented the democratic process. It has used litigation at lower court levels to try to create a fait accompli on the issue of same sex marriage.

Over the past several years, individual judges in lower courts of several provinces have struck down the traditional definition of marriage. However, the federal government refused to appeal lower court rulings, suddenly adopting the position that same sex marriage constitutes a fundamental right.

The federal government went so far as to stack the justice committee for an important vote on whether to appeal the Halpern Ontario Court of Appeal decision in this matter. It has further argued that Parliament itself has no right to respond to these rulings with legislation to protect the traditional definition of marriage.

In essence, the government attempted to shut down all meaningful debate on a vital question that has far-reaching policy implications. It was especially urgent for the Liberals that this issue not be front and centre in the last election, so they did all in their power to stifle debate and public input.

Last year this hidden Liberal agenda hit its first major snag. The government had referred the issue of same sex marriage to the Supreme Court asking four questions, one of which was whether the traditional definition of marriage was constitutional. Although federal lawyers tried to argue before the court that the traditional definition of marriage was not constitutional, the Supreme Court refused to be drawn into the political debate and declined to answer the question.

As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court, when we read its decision, contemplated answering the question either way. This has returned the matter to Parliament, which is exactly where it should be, for the consequences of what the government is attempting to do are serious.

Same sex marriage could have a profound implication on freedom of religion and freedom of conscience in Canada. For example, we have seen already where marriage commissioners in several provinces have already lost their jobs for refusing to agree to same sex marriage because it goes against their conscience. In an interview on CPAC on December 12, 2004, the deputy House leader for the Liberals stated that public servants, such as marriage commissioners, who refused to accept same sex marriage should be sanctioned or fired. That is shameful.

There is now a great concern in Canada that if same sex marriage is legalized, it will have a profound and long-lasting implication for freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, and it will become increasingly difficult for people who do not agree with same sex marriage to participate in public life.

While the government has claimed that it will protect religious freedoms, the evidence does not support this assertion. After all, past promises to use all necessary means to protect the traditional definition of marriage were violated in less than five years.

Moreover, a clear signal has already been sent by virtue of the fact that even cabinet ministers will not be permitted a free vote on this question. If even the rights of cabinet ministers to express their views on an issue of personal conscience cannot be protected, one can hardly place much confidence in promises to protect the freedom of other Canadians.

Further, the justice committee heard evidence that warned of the social impact on changing the definition of marriage. Experts testified that we were embarking on a policy experiment that would have a profound impact on the way we view relationships and value marriage in our society.

It was for these reasons that I introduced my bill, so that Canadians could be engaged in a debate that the Liberals tried to prevent from taking place. I am pleased that we were able to spark an interest in this issue. I am grateful to the thousands of Canadians who expressed support for our effort to preserve our most basic social institution.

In light of the fact that the committee members did not have the benefit of seeing the Supreme Court's decision before they made their own decision, and in light of the fact that the court has not ruled that the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional, I would now ask for unanimous consent that my bill be made votable.

Civil Marriage Act

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today to make some comments with respect to Bill C-38. I want to divide my remarks into four basic sections: first, I will briefly make some political observations; second, I will deal with how I see the history of this matter; third, I will discuss what I consider to be a duty to act; and fourth, I will examine Bill C-38 and what I consider to be its weaknesses.

Just a few words on politics. I am privileged to be in my 17th year as a member of Parliament. During that period of time I have served with three leaders of the Liberal Party and one interim leader of the Liberal Party. Throughout that time my opposition to same sex marriage has been well known. Yet it is obvious by the fact that I am the first Liberal backbencher to speak, in fact the first Liberal to speak immediately after the Prime Minister, that there is no underhandedness in determining who will speak to this bill on this side.

In 17 years under three leaders and one interim leader, never have I been asked to submit a speech to anyone to have it reviewed or to have it vetted. Not that it would work, but it has simply never happened. I lament that there are situations where people seem to think that is necessary in a House of free and open debate.

I would like to turn now to the history of this matter as I see it. Back in Chilliwack, British Columbia, in 1994, I issued my first speech on this matter. I predicted that if matters were not observed quickly and a halt was not put to the movement, same sex marriage would become a fact in this country.

In a paper dated November 16, 1994, which I distributed to all members of Parliament, so anyone who was a member of Parliament in 1994 received it, I outlined exactly how this would happen and the steps that would be used to achieve this objective.

Sadly for me, because I hoped I would be wrong, matters have proceeded exactly as I predicted almost 11 years ago. Unfortunately, people refused to listen and they refused to believe.

I wrote a letter to former justice minister, Mr. Rock, pointing out that there was a court decision in Ontario from the then divisional court where two judges to one had decided in favour of traditional marriage. My point was that the dissenting judge had found that traditional marriage was unconstitutional. I warned the justice minister of the day that two to one in favour of traditional marriage today could be two to one against traditional marriage tomorrow, and what was he going to do about it?

He had written a letter to a concerned Canadian and this is dated February 24, 1997. I want to quote two paragraphs from it. It reads:

I take your concerns and those of Mr. Wappel seriously, but I do not agree that it is necessary to legislate to define marriage in heterosexual terms and I would like to take this opportunity to clarify why. The definition of marriage in law in Canada is already the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Thus, 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 court. Let me assure you that this government remains committed to supporting Canadian families and that there are no plans to change the concept of marriage in Canada.

I was not reassured by the reassurance and therefore I proposed a bill to amend the Marriage Act of Canada to enshrine the traditional definition of marriage into law.

I explained to the then justice minister why this was necessary given the divisions that were beginning to appear in the courts in our country. I brought that bill forward and it was vociferously opposed by the Department of Justice of the day. A new justice minister took up the cause and wrote to a supporter of my private member's bill on April 24, 1998. Justice Minister McLellan stated:

I take your concerns and those of Mr. Wappel seriously, but do not agree that it is necessary to legislate to define marriage in heterosexual terms, and I would like to take this opportunity to clarify why.

Clearly, everyone can see it is the same wording as a year ago from a previous justice minister. It continues:

The definition of marriage in law in Canada is already the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. It is not necessary to pass such legislation as in legal terms it would not add to or clarify the present state of the law in Canada.

Thus, 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 court. Indeed, the same concept of marriage is present throughout the world. Even in the few European countries...which allow limited recognition of same sex relationships, sometimes in the same manner as common law spouses, a clear distinction is maintained in the law between marriage and same sex partnerships.

The House considered a motion on June 8, 1999, which stated:

That, in the opinion of this 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. Among the members of Parliament who voted in favour of that motion were, according to Hansard , Mr. Cauchon, Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice), Madam McLellan (Edmonton West), Mr. Martin (LaSalle—Émard), and Mr. Rock.

In the year 2000 the House passed legislation known legally as the Statutes of Canada 2000, Chapter 12. In section 1.1 of that act, the House of Commons, in a government bill, supported by the Government of Canada, enacted the following legislation. This is not a preamble; this is legislation.

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 the face of that, in June of 2003 along comes the Court of Appeal decision in Halpern. In the meantime, the Prime Minister of the day had mandated the justice committee of Parliament to go across Canada to study this issue, make recommendations, and deliver a report to Parliament so that Parliament could debate this issue.

This brings me to the next part of my speech concerning duty bound to act. I maintain that it was the duty of the prime minister of the day and the justice minister of the day to uphold the laws and integrity of Parliament. As we have already heard, two justice ministers had already stated that the law was clear. A motion had been passed by Parliament supported overwhelmingly, including the government members and the cabinet, that the definition was included in a statute of the Parliament of Canada and the justice committee was mandated to study this issue.

After Parliament was adjourned and we were no longer sitting in caucuses, the Court of Appeal decision came out. Contrary to this duty to act to support the laws of Canada and the Parliament of Canada and the integrity of the Parliament of Canada, the prime minister of the day, without consultation with caucus, without consultation with Parliament, and without letting the justice committee finish its job, decided not to appeal the Court of Appeal decision of the province of Ontario, effectively undercutting and undermining his own legislation and the expressed will of Parliament.

I would now like to explain my views on why I consider Bill C-38 to be discriminatory, a sham, and a hoax on parliamentarians and Canadians. I am going to refer specifically to each of those categories.

In my view this bill is discriminatory. It has been argued that same sex marriage is somehow a right. This is not legally accurate. The Supreme Court, in the reference decision, did not declare that permitting same sex couples to marry was a right. Absolutely no country in the entire world has declared it to be a human right, including the two countries which presently allow same sex marriages. No one has done that.

How can something be a right when it is not recognized in law by anyone in any country in the world, including the Supreme Court of Canada, as a declared right? Therefore, to say a right is a right in the context of same sex marriage is legally wrong.

Then we have to turn to section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which talks about laws being enacted without discrimination; in this case, without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. We have to look at the institution of marriage then.

Is the institution of marriage discriminatory? Of course it is, by its very nature. We cannot get married unless we are of a certain age. That is discrimination on the basis of age. We cannot get married if we do not have proper mental capacity. That is discrimination on the basis of disability. We cannot get married unless we are of the proper bloodline. That is discrimination on the basis of who our parents are or who our siblings are, including, as we will see later, adoptive children.

It discriminates against religion because it says we can only have in this country, not in the world but in this country, one spouse: one wife or husband. This is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation because it says we must marry someone of the opposite sex.

To my mind the bill seeks to “fix” discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation by allowing people of the same sex to marry, but at the very same time the bill continues to permit discrimination on the basis of age. People still have to be of a certain age even though according to our laws, they can legally have sexual intercourse at the age of 14, but they cannot marry at the age of 14. It discriminates continuously on the basis of mental capacity and who decides on the mental capacity. It discriminates on the basis of bloodline and indeed, this particular bill perpetuates that discrimination in clause 13. It states:

Subsection 2(2) of the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act is replaced by the following:

(2) No person shall marry another person if they are related lineally, or as brother or sister or half-brother or half-sister, including by adoption.

It discriminates and continues to discriminate on the basis of religion because it says in clause 2:

Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.

That discriminates against those religions that believe that it is perfectly acceptable to have more than one spouse. That is discrimination on the basis of religion.

Therefore, why is it acceptable to remove discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation but continue to permit and perpetuate in legislation and common law other forms of discrimination? Either we eliminate all forms of discrimination or we leave the current definition alone. It has worked for millennia. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

That brings me to the subject of polygamy. Some say that raising polygamy is a red herring and has nothing whatsoever to do with this bill. That is utter legal nonsense. Polygamy is currently against the law, section 293 of the Criminal Code.

At the stroke of a judicial pen, that section can be declared unconstitutional on the basis of section 15 charter guarantees of freedom of religion. People say that is not going to happen, but I am going to give two real life examples.

The first one is the very definition of marriage. The law of this country was the common law for millennia. The law was that people had to be of the opposite sex. With the stroke of a pen, that which was illegal was made legal by the courts, not by the Parliament of Canada.

Section 159 of the Criminal Code reads: “Every person who engages in an act of anal intercourse is guilty of an indictable offence...”. It goes on. There are exceptions: “...any two persons, each of whom is eighteen years of age or more,both of whom consent to the act.” That is fine. There is no problem there.

That section was challenged on the basis that it was discriminatory because of age. Justice Abella of the Ontario Court of Appeal struck that section down because it was contrary to the age discrimination in section 15, in her view.What did that mean? That meant that for the Criminal Code of Canada, written into the laws of this country, which denied anal intercourse to people under the age of 18, with the stroke of a judicial pen that which was illegal became legal.

Why would members think, when those two examples have already occurred, it is beyond the pale that a judge at the stroke of a pen will declare polygamy legal because the law against it discriminates on the basis of religion?

Those who argue in favour of polygamy will say, “How can we end discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in marriage but continue to permit discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs in marriage?” Where is the logic in opposing this argument?

Why is this bill a sham? First, the preamble is sleight of hand. It is meaningless legally. A court can refer to and follow preambles and has, and a court can ignore and has ignored preambles. The courts have already ignored the express will of Parliament, as I read from section 1.1 of the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, so why does anyone think they will not ignore a preamble?

Why is the bill a hoax? 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.

The Supreme Court in the reference decision has stated clearly and unequivocally that this subject matter is out of bounds to the federal Parliament; it is ultra vires federal Parliament. That is not the member for Scarborough Southwest speaking. That is the Supreme Court of Canada speaking:

Legislative competence over the performance or solemnization of marriage is exclusively allocated to the provinces under s. 92(12) of the Constitution Act, 1867....Section 2 of the Proposed Act is therefore ultra vires Parliament.

Section 2 of the proposed act was virtually the same wording that is in Bill C-38. The court goes on to say:

While it is true that Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction to enact declaratory legislation relating to the interpretation of its own statutes, such declaratory provisions can have no bearing on the constitutional division of legislative authority. That is a matter to be determined, should the need arise, by the courts. It follows that a federal provision seeking to ensure that the Act within which it is situated is not interpreted so as to trench on provincial powers can have no effect and is superfluous.

That section has no effect and is superfluous, according to the Supreme Court of Canada. How can a justice minister put a section into an act which the Supreme Court of Canada has already said is ultra vires Parliament of Canada? He cannot do it.

In conclusion, I just want the people of my riding to remember that I was very clear in my position. In June 2003 in my householder, I said:

--Parliament, by statute, reaffirmed the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.

For me, there can be no other definition of this term.

This has been my consistent public position since I entered public life in 1988, four elections ago. My position is firm and unalterable. I will do all I can as an individual to try to preserve and promote the only definition of marriage I know.

I ask the Parliament of Canada to defeat this legislation and ensure that marriage remains between one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that once again you have provided an outstanding judgment.

This afternoon we will continue with the NDP opposition motion.

Tomorrow we will begin with the motion standing in my name with regard to the Standing Orders. We will then proceed to report stage and third reading of Bill C-39, respecting the health accord. When this is complete, we will return to Bill C-38, which is the civil marriage bill. This will also be the business on Monday.

Tuesday will be an allotted day.

On Wednesday we will consider report stage and third reading of Bill C-33, the financial legislation; Bill C-8, the public service bill; Bill C-3, respecting the Coast Guard; and Bill S-17, respecting tax conventions.

At 4 p.m. on Wednesday the Minister of Finance will make his budget presentation. We shall take up the debate on the budget on Thursday.

As well, with respect to the hon. member's question, I would say to the hon. member that in the fullness of time we would have the Judges Act in the House. I will take every opportunity to ensure that House leaders are fully informed of when that legislation is to come to the House.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say at the outset that I am sure you will take the opportunity, as my colleague requested, to review the blues and see specifically where the mention of Bill C-38 was in that question.

Would the government House leader care to indulge the members of the House of Commons and the general public and reveal what the government's agenda will be, the legislation before the House for the remainder of this week and into next week?

In addition, last week I asked him about the judges' remuneration bill, changes to the Judges Act, and he said that it would be forthcoming in due course. I just wonder if he has any further opinion on when due course will actually occur.

Civil Marriage Act

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, I spent 32 years in the field of education, mostly at the secondary and junior high school level. During those years I had some experience dealing with mandated programs that came into play with regard to sex education and various things. This became quite an issue with a number of parents who felt that certain subjects should be left in the home, in the church, and not in the educational system. It was not long before those things were pretty well mandated across the country and have since become an intricate part of the educational system, much to the dismay of many.

As a consequence of that, private schools began cropping up because they did not want the mandated programs offered by the public system. I know for certain that lineups to get into private schools have grown since the introduction of this legislation because of the fear of what may happen in the public system as a result of the bill.

I wonder if the member could tell me what he anticipates might happen to the educational system at the secondary or junior high level, or even at the earlier levels if Bill C-38 is passed.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I am proud to lead off the debate today on Bill C-38, the civil marriage act.

I had hoped to be able to share this time with my leader, the member for Toronto--Danforth, but he is still recovering from the appendix surgery he had on the weekend. I know we all want to wish him a quick recovery. As a long time supporter of the gay and lesbian community, I know he will be following the debate this afternoon with great interest.

I am proud today to speak to this important legislation as an openly gay man. Thirty-one years ago I was a 19 year old student at the beginning of my university career. I was struggling with coming out as a gay person. For years I had known the terrible isolation of being in the closet, holding a secret that I dare not tell anyone for fear I would be ostracized, beaten or worse.

As a young gay man I saw little hope of a relationship and certainly little hope of a relationship that would be celebrated and honoured as my parents' and grandparents' relationships had been celebrated and honoured. It just was not an option. Gay relationships when discussed at all were usually seen as fleeting, furtive, secretive. In my closet I was led to believe that promiscuity would be the only option if I was to live as an openly gay person.

However that did not sit well with the values I had learned in my family, my church and my community. At that time my very limited experience in the gay community had not shown me other possibilities.

It was at that time that I heard in the media the story of a brave Winnipeg gay couple, Chris Vogel and Richard North. Back in 1974, Chris and Richard challenged the marriage laws and attempted to get a marriage licence in Manitoba. They did not get the licence but they found support in a Unitarian church where they were married after the reading of wedding bans. Their action meant so much to a closeted young man from a small Ontario city.

What a revelation they were to me. Imagine, two gay men willing to challenge the laws and challenge society to seek to make a lifelong commitment to each other. Perhaps after all there was hope that I too could find that kind of loving, creative, secure partnership.

It is not as though gay and lesbian couples were not making commitments to each other back then and for many years before that, but emerging from the isolation of the closet one really had to be lucky to find them.

When I moved to B.C. in 1979 the longest gay relationship I had personally ever encountered was one that lasted 11 months, and that was one of mine. Arriving in Vancouver, almost within weeks I met, through my church connections, two couples who had been together for over 25 years. I could not believe it. Bruce and Ed, Patrick and Rob seemed like the most remarkable people to me, making a relationship work in a society that refused to recognize the full worth of gay and lesbian people, making a relationship work without the support of family, the church, the law. It literally filled me with awe and with hope. Their example opened new possibilities for my life. I longed for the security of home and family. When I thought about a relationship that was my priority.

Twenty-four years ago I met my partner, Brian, at a meeting of gays and lesbians at the University of British Columbia held at the Lutheran Campus Centre. Twenty-four years ago we began a relationship that continues to this day.

In my relationship with Brian, I found the love I yearned for, the security I was seeking, the creative energy that nourishes me and the mystery that continues to astonish me.

Twenty-four years ago, Brian and I could not be married. We made our accommodation with those circumstances. We have been lucky to be supported in our life together by family, friends, colleagues and our church family. We have not yet chosen to be married but to have that choice is very important to us.

Chris Vogel and Richard North continue to celebrate anniversary after anniversary. Just recently, in fact on the same day the Supreme Court ruled on the government's reference on marriage, Chris and Richard received the Manitoba Human Rights Commitment Award for their many contributions to human rights in that province.

Chris and Richard have been joined by many other brave gay and lesbian couples in recent years, couples who have not been afraid to put their relationships in the public spotlight by challenging the laws on marriage which excluded them. These couples challenged the laws in Ontario, B.C., Quebec, Nova Scotia, Yukon, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador and they won their point. It is their efforts that have brought us to this debate today.

These couples have had an important effect on those around them. They have shown many people, whatever their sexual orientation, the importance of making a lifelong commitment. They have championed marriage as an institution of value and worth in our society. They have been role models for young gay and lesbian people who still, far too often, remain isolated and alone in communities in every corner of this country.

In a society where far too many gay and lesbian young people choose suicide, they have shown a way of hope, pride and possibility. In a world that cries out for love and commitment, for responsibility and for right relationship, these couples have had the courage to publicly celebrate their lives together. They have had the courage to call society out of its intolerance and prejudice. They have had the courage to honour an institution central to our society and central to many of our dreams and ideals.

It is not just the couples who challenged the law before the courts. Hundreds of gay and lesbian couples have been married in Canada in the past year. They are all witnesses to love and commitment, role models each and every one. This has not been an attempt to change our society's understanding of marriage. These are couples who sought to be included in marriage as we understand it today, not change its values, ideals or traditions. They have willingly and enthusiastically sought out its responsibilities, obligations and duties. They seek the stability it will allow for them, for their children and for their families.

The bill before us is also not an attempt to change marriage. The bill expands the definition of marriage to include gay and lesbian couples. It allows gay and lesbian couples to access civil marriage in Canada. It does not fiddle with the ideals of marriage, the responsibilities of marriage, the obligations of marriage. It merely acknowledges that the full equality of gay and lesbian Canadians demands our inclusion in marriage, our access to that institution.

On Monday, I was honoured to share a podium with my colleagues from Vancouver East and Hochelaga. My colleague from Hochelaga is also openly gay. I remember very fondly the day he came out publicly. In fact, I sent him a fan letter that day. I have great respect for his work toward the full equality of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in Quebec and Canada.

I am constantly proud to be associated with my sister from Vancouver East, who for many years was my member of Parliament and was the first member of Parliament in Canada to acknowledge that she was in a loving relationship with another woman. Her courage and her devotion to fighting for social change and justice inspire me daily.

I was honoured to share a podium with these hon. members as we explained why this debate was so crucial to us as members of the gay and lesbian community and as MPs. We made it clear that for us, this debate was not an abstract intellectual exercise, but that instead it was about how we live and love intimately, how we make personal commitments, how we celebrate our relationships. We spoke about how respect for the institution of marriage was a prime characteristic of our community's effort in this debate. We spoke about how being excluded from a key institution of our society made us second class citizens. We spoke about our support for religious freedom in Canada. We spoke about our determination to carry out this debate with both respect and directness.

This issue is more than just the consideration of civil marriage. It is actually about the full citizenship of gay and lesbian people, our full citizenship. Gay and lesbian people cannot be considered full citizens if key institutions of our society are considered out of bounds to us. We cannot be considered full citizens if civil marriage, one of those central institutions, is seen to be outside our experience and our reach.

Separate or new institutions or legal arrangements will not meet the test of the value of our citizenship. Civil union applied only to gay and lesbian couples is not an answer because separate is not equal. Separate water fountains, separate sections on the bus, separate beaches, none of these are acceptable in societies that value the full equality of their people. I and my party believe the same is true of civil marriage.

This matter is not one that limits religious freedom. The bill takes great pain to be clear on that subject. We in the NDP support the protection of religious freedom. I personally, as an active member of the United Church of Canada, strongly support religious freedom. No mosque, no temple, no church, no synagogue and no clergy person should be forced to perform a marriage of a gay or lesbian couple if that act conflicts with their belief, practice or theology.

Religious organizations must make decisions about religious marriage. However, religious organizations that choose to solemnize the marriage of gay and lesbian couples should also be able to do so in exactly the same way they do for heterosexual couples. Whether that means marrying a couple who has obtained a marriage licence or being able to officially register the marriage of a couple for whom banns have been read, those religious organizations should have that ability guaranteed as part of our commitment to religious freedom.

The Metropolitan Community Church fully supports the marriage of gay and lesbian couples and has worked hard to realize this change. The Unitarian Church and the United Church of Canada have been leaders toward this change, as has the Canadian Coalition of Liberal Rabbis for Same-Sex Marriage. Ultimately this legislation is about state-defined civil marriage, not religious marriage.

Alex Munter, a spokesperson for Canadians for Equal Marriage, had high praise for Bill C-38. He said that the bill reflected the genius of Canada in the way in which it supported the full equality of gay and lesbian couples and at the same time provided for the protection of religious freedom.

I agree with Mr. Munter. The bill is indeed very Canadian. It provides for a difference of opinion, while both protecting and expanding basic rights important to Canadians.

Let me pay tribute to the efforts of Canadians for Equal Marriage and Egale Canada for their tireless work advocating for marriage rights for Canadians.

Not all gay and lesbian Canadians aspire to be married. Not all gay and lesbian couples in Canada will choose marriage. Some in our community have serious and important questions about the institution of marriage, and not all of our marriages will succeed. That is no different than the situation for heterosexual couples and straight people in Canada. In the same way that heterosexual couples have a choice to be married or not, I believe that gay and lesbian couples must have that same choice.

I know this issue is a difficult one for many members of Parliament. I know there are members who have been told that they are not welcome in their faith communities because of the position they have taken. I know all members have been flooded with letters of support and opposition to this legislation. I am well aware of the emotional toll that this debate is having.

As a gay man I can assure this House that gay and lesbian Canadians know all too well the risks associated with standing up for our full human rights. We know that we often lose friends, family connections, our welcome in faith communities and our jobs. We sometimes even experience intimidation and violence when we stand for our full inclusion in the community.

Let me assure my colleagues that there are joys associated with that risk too. There is light at the end of the tunnel.

I know that many of my constituents have strong feelings about this legislation. I have heard from thousands of people, many from Burnaby—Douglas, many from across Canada. My support for marriage will come as no surprise to my constituents. They know that I worked with my predecessor Svend Robinson over many years, supporting his early initiatives on this issue. People in Burnaby--Douglas respected Svend's position, even if they disagreed. He was always clear with them and accountable for his actions.

For my part, I too have been very clear about my stand. It came up regularly during last June's election campaign, in public meetings, in media interviews and on the doorstep. I never shied away from indicating that I would be a strong supporter and advocate for gay and lesbian marriage.

I was not alone in that position among candidates in my riding. In fact, a very strong majority of voters in my riding cast their ballots for candidates who were committed to supporting this kind of legislation.

I know not everyone in Burnaby--Douglas supports this bill. I respect their position. I appreciate hearing from them about their concern. However, when the vote comes I will be voting in support, ensuring that gay and lesbian couples can be married in Canada.

I also want to speak about my party's position on this issue. The New Democratic Party of Canada has been on the record for many years as supporting gay and lesbian marriage. It has been part of our election platform. In fact, the party policy committed the NDP to changing the law to include gay and lesbian couples in marriage in our first term should we form government.

The policy went further. After democratic debate at a party convention, delegates voted for a motion that directed caucus to support this change as a fundamental issue of human rights.

I do not know of any of our party's policies where delegates actually called caucus members to a particular course of action. It tells Canadians of our party's commitment. I am proud that we in the NDP will perhaps have the strongest overall commitment to this change of any caucus represented here in the House.

There are disappointments for me associated with this debate. I am disappointed that it has taken the government so long to get this on the agenda of the House, forcing couples at great personal expense and risk to take their concerns to the courts. I think that the government tried to keep this matter off the agenda of the last election by its reference to the Supreme Court. I think that was just a delaying tactic.

I am disappointed too that if it was up to the Liberal and Conservative Parties this legislation would fail. This is particularly troubling, given the Prime Minister's stirring defence of the charter and human rights in Canada in the last days of the election campaign. The Prime Minister wrapped himself in the charter and pledged to defend those rights. Today we see the Liberal caucus divided on this matter.

Without the NDP and the strong support of the Bloc Québécois, the legislation would not have a hope.

I hope the Prime Minister appreciates that it is the commitment of these two opposition parties to the charter, to human rights, to the full equality of gays and lesbians that will ensure the legislation passes.

I am also disappointed in the position taken by the Conservative Party. Perhaps I should not be surprised given that party's consistent history of failing to support initiatives that address the equality of gay and lesbian Canadians.

However, the way in which the Conservatives have made their argument has been particularly problematic. We first heard how this legislation presented a slippery slope that would lead to polygamy, a notion roundly criticized in many quarters and that ignores the very real problems associated with polygamy that is practised in Canada today. Then it was proposed that there could in fact be an opposite sex definition of marriage that would meet constitutional requirements without using the notwithstanding clause, a position that was denounced by over 130 legal and constitutional experts.

We then heard from the Conservatives that Canada's ethnic communities would not stand for including gays and lesbians in the institution of marriage, a suggestion that offended many in those communities and belied the political, social and religious diversity of ethnic communities in Canada.

And more recently, a longtime Conservative member of Parliament asserted that gay and lesbian Canadians were not discriminated against by the current definition of marriage because we were in fact free to marry a person of the opposite sex. There could be no position that denies the reality of our lives as gay and lesbian people more than that. It fundamentally denies the reality of our love, our commitments, our sexuality, our lives. It makes our love, our relationships invisible. I hope this is not a view that is widely shared in that party.

I have not heard effective reasons from the Conservatives yet, but I am willing to listen carefully to the debate in the coming days.

This legislation will be good for Canada. Because it recognizes the full equality of gay and lesbian couples, it will make a difference. Because it honours the institution of marriage by including couples who are dedicated to the ideals and responsibilities of that institution who do not take it for granted, who are willing to fight to be subject to its traditions and obligations, it will make a difference. Because it will bring joy to the very being of many people who will be able to make a commitment that they only dreamed might be possible or who have sought the opportunity to support gay and lesbian family members and friends find the important affirmation of their relationship, it will make a difference. Because it will say to people around the world that Canada honours and respects its gay and lesbian citizens and is prepared to bring them into full citizenship, leading not following the movement toward equality for gays and lesbians everywhere, it will make a difference.

Relationships are complicated. They are mysterious. They give meaning to our lives. For me, theologian Isobel Carter Heyward offers an excellent description of loving relationship when she says:

To say I love you is to say that you are not mine, but rather your own.To love you is to advocate your rights, your space, your self, and to struggle with you, rather than against you, in your learning to claim your power in the world.To love you is to make love to you, and with you, whether in an exchange of glances heavy with existence, in the passing of a peace we mean, in our common work or play, in our struggle for social justice, or in the ecstasy and tenderness of intimate embrace which we believe is just and right for us--and for others in the world.To love you is to be pushed by a power/god both terrifying and comforting, to touch and be touched by you. To love you is to sing with you, cry with you, pray with you, and act with you to re-create the world.

When it comes down to it, there is no difference in the love experienced by gay and lesbian couples and heterosexual couples. Love is love is love.

The bill is a cause for celebration. Soon, when it finally passes, we will be able to celebrate the love and commitment of all Canadian couples. The circle of love, of responsibility, of commitment, of marriage will be wider.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague and leader of the Bloc the following question.

One of the arguments presented by opponents of same sex marriage, as formulated by the leader of the opposition, is that of freedom of religion and the fear that adopting Bill C-38 would interfere with that freedom.

Is the opposite not true? In other words, is it not true that today, if the bill does not pass, and same sex marriage remains illegal, religious groups—I am thinking of the United Church, the Unitarian Church, the reformed branch of Judaism—who want to marry same sex couples, will not be able to do so because same sex marriage is illegal. If Bill C-38 does pass, it would permit these people—meaning these groups—who want to marry same sex couples to do so, while also protecting the right of the Catholic Church, the Baptist Church and other religious groups not to marry same sex couples if they so choose. In other words, will we not achieve the appropriate balance by protecting the right of some to perform marriages if they so choose and the right of others to not perform such marriages, if that is their choice?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions with the other parties and I believe that you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That today's government orders be extended to allow for one speaker from each recognized party on Bill C-38.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Do you remember when the Prime Minister was a leadership candidate and wanted a democratic and respectful debate on this issue. On this side of the House, we hope that he and the members of his party will keep that promise during the course of this debate.

In August 2003, the Prime Minister, then a candidate for the Liberal leadership, who seemed very concerned with democracy and parliamentary reform, said that, “The courts having spoken, I believe that it's very important that Parliament speaks and that Parliament speaks through the voices of its representatives: members of Parliament. And what that essentially means is that this has got to be a debate that is civil, not a debate on which either side ascribes motivation, questions the motivation or ascribes blame, that in fact that the debate really deal with the fundamental social values of the country. And I think that that is what's going to happen”.

“There are going to be people who are going to raise other ways of looking at this. There are going to be people who will deal, for instance, who are going to raise the issue of civil union. And it may well be that they will raise solutions to the impediment that civil unions might provide. And I think that's an essential role of Parliament. And I think it's the kind of thing we should listen to”.

The Prime Minister had it right then, back in his democratic deficit fighting days as a leadership candidate. I hope he will remember his words of a year and a half ago and will not resort to the questioning of motives that he, his justice minister and others have increasingly resorted to in recent weeks when we propose the very policy on this issue that the Prime Minister used to win the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada.

As the Prime Minister invited us to do, I do want to engage in this debate about fundamental social values. I do want to discuss how compromise proposals like civil unions may be able to resolve some of the impediments the Prime Minister noted. I hope the Prime Minister will extend to me and roughly half the members of the House and roughly two-thirds of the country who support the traditional definition of marriage, the courtesy of an open debate without facing spurious charges of bigotry or bad faith from the Prime Minister, his spin doctors or his media allies.

My position on the definition of marriage is well known, because it is quite clear. It is not derived from personal prejudice or political tactics, as some Liberal MPs would have us believe with their usual air of moral superiority. My position, and that of most of the members of my party, is based on a very solid foundation and time tested values.

I also want to point out that the members of my party, including those in our shadow cabinet, are perfectly free to vote according to their conscience without my interference.

It will come as no surprise to anybody to know that I support the traditional definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, as expressed in our traditional common law. I believe this definition of marriage has served society well, has stood the test of time and is in fact a foundational institution of society. In my view the onus is on those who want to overturn such a fundamental social institution to prove that it is absolutely necessary, that there is no other compromise that can respect the rights of same sex couples while still preserving one of the cornerstones of our society and its many cultures.

Up until a few years ago, even within the modern era of the charter, Canadian law and Canadian society took for granted that marriage was intrinsic, by definition, an opposite sex institution. So obvious was this that until now a formal marriage statute has never been adopted by Parliament. This view was not even restricted to the numerous faces and cultures that have populated our great country from all corners of the earth, though it has been a universal view among them.

It has been a widespread view beyond religion as well. For example, the renowned McGill medical and legal ethicist, Dr. Margaret Somerville, a secular scholar operating in a public university without confessional or religious orientation, has argued that marriage is inherently an opposite sex institution. She points out that while social institutions can and should change in some of their accidental trappings, there are also inherent features that cannot change. As she writes:

Institutions have both inherent and collateral features. Inherent features define the institution and cannot be changed without destroying the institution. Collateral features can be changed without such impact. We rightly recognized that women must be treated as equal partners with men within marriage. While that changed the power of husbands over their wives, it simply changed a collateral feature of marriage. Recognizing same-sex marriage would change its inherent nature.

In a similar vein, former Supreme Court Justice Gérard La Forest, speaking on behalf of four judges in the majority in the Egan decision, the last case by the way where the Supreme Court addressed the definition of marriage directly, famously said the following:

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 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 point out again, this is what the Supreme Court of Canada actually said, not, as the Prime Minister emphasizes, mere speculation about what it may say in the future. The statement was also written in 1995, over a decade after adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it remains the only commentary on the fundamental definition of marriage in any Supreme Court decision.

Even years after Justice La Forest's statements, members of the Liberal government still denied any hidden agenda to change the definition of marriage. In fact, the Deputy Minister stood in the House in 1999 and said the following on behalf of the government:

We on this side agree that the institution of marriage is a central and important institution in the lives of many Canadians. It plays an important part in all societies worldwide, second only to the fundamental importance of family to all of us.

The institution of marriage is of great importance to large numbers of Canadians, and the definition of marriage as found in the hon. member's motion is clear in law.

As stated in the motion, the definition of marriage is already clear in law. It is not found in a statute, but then not all law exists in statutes, and the law is no less binding and no less the law because it is found in the common law instead of in a statute.

The definition of marriage, which has been consistently applied in Canada, comes from an 1866 British case which holds that marriage is “the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”. That case and that definition are considered clear law by ordinary Canadians, by academics and by the courts. The courts have upheld the constitutionality of that definition.

The Ontario Court, General Division, recently upheld in Layland and Beaulne the definition of marriage. In that decision a majority of the court stated the following:

—unions of persons of the same sex are not “marriages”, because of the definition of marriage. The applicants are, in effect, seeking to use s. 15 of the Charter to bring about a change in the definition of marriage. I do not think the Charter has that effect.

I am aware, as are other ministers, that recent court decisions and resulting media coverage have raised concern around the issue of same sex partners. It appears that the hon. member believes that the motion is both necessary and effective as a means to keep the Government of Canada from suddenly legislating the legalization of same sex marriages. That kind of misunderstanding of the intention of the government should be corrected.

Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages.

I fundamentally do not believe that it is necessary to change the definition of marriage in order to accommodate the equality issues around same sex partners which now face us as Canadians. The courts have ruled that some recognition must be given to the realities of unmarried cohabitation in terms of both opposite sex and same sex partners. I strongly believe that the message to the government and to all Canadian governments from the Canadian public is a message of tolerance, fairness and respect for others.

Marriage has fundamental value and importance to Canadians and we do not believe on this side of the House that importance and value is in any way threatened or undermined by others seeking to have their long term relationships recognized. I support the motion for maintaining the clear legal definition of marriage in Canada as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Thus spoke at great length the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, then justice minister, in this chamber less than six years ago.

Today, for making statements that are identical and for identical reasons, members of the government side resort to terms like bigot, reactionary and human rights violators. The hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty of the government and some of its members at this point is frankly staggering.

Fundamentally, what has changed since the government, including the Prime Minister, voted for the traditional definition of marriage in 1999?

On this side, we do not believe that merely on the basis of lower court decisions, upheld only because the government refused to appeal, them that a fundamental social institution must be abolished or irretrievably altered. Only a free vote of the Parliament of Canada is an appropriate way to resolve such fundamental social issues.

As I say, I have made it clear that I and most of the members on this side of the House will vote against the bill as it now stands. We will vote to uphold the traditional definition of marriage. Those in this party, even in my shadow cabinet who consciously feel different, who believe that the definition of marriage should change, will have the full rights to express and vote their position on this subject.

My party wanted to adopt a reasonable position respectful of every social group. We also think our position represents the feelings and convictions of the majority of Canadians.

As the official opposition in a minority Parliament, we feel it is insufficient to oppose. We must also put forward a constructive alternative. We have discussed this issue and wrestled with this issue in our own caucus, as have Canadians in living rooms, kitchens, coffee shops and church basements across the country.

I know and we all know and understand that this is difficult. The issue involves all kinds of aspects of life that are very close to personal identity, to sexual identity which for many people has been a difficult path, cultural tradition and ethnic identity and of course personal faith in one's relationship to their God.

However, while there is no perfect answer, and there is no perfect answer that will satisfy everyone, we believe we can and should offer a compromise that would win the support of the vast majority of Canadians who seek some middle ground on the issue.

In our discussion with Canadians we find there are three groups in public opinion.

At the one end there is a significant body of opinion, led today by the Prime Minister, which believes that the equality rights of gays and lesbians trump all other considerations, trumping any rights to religious faith, any religious expression or any multicultural diversity, and that any restriction on the right to same sex marriage is unjustifiable discrimination and a denial of human rights.

At the other end, there is an equally significant body that thinks that marriage is such a fundamental social institution, not only recognized by law but sanctified by faith throughout the world and throughout history, that any compromise in terms of recognizing homosexual relationships is unacceptable.

However, we believe that the vast majority of Canadians believe in some aspects of both and they are somewhere in the middle. They believe that marriage is a fundamental distinct institution, but that same sex couples can have equivalent rights and benefits and should be recognized and protected.

We believe that our proposals speak to the majority of Canadians who stand in this middle ground and frankly, who seek such a middle ground. Our proposal is that the law should continue to recognize the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, but at the same time we would propose that other forms of union, however structured, by appropriate provincial legislation, whether called registered partnerships, domestic partnerships, civil unions or whatever, should be entitled to the same legal rights, privileges and obligations as marriage.

Many of these types of unions are already subject to provincial jurisdiction under their responsibility for civil law. However, there are issues affecting rights and benefits within the federal domain, and our party would ensure that for all federal purposes those Canadians living in other forms of union would be recognized as having equal rights and benefits under federal law as well.

What we put forward, in my judgment, is the real Canadian way. The Canadian way is not the blindly, ideological interpretation of the charter put forward by the Prime Minister. It is not a case where one side utterly vanquishes the other in a difficult debate on social issues. It is a constructive way, and as debate in other jurisdictions has shown, and I draw this to the attention of the House, this debate will not reach a conclusion or social peace until equal rights, multicultural diversity and religious freedom are balanced.

We also oppose the government's bill because it is a clear threat to religious freedom. We are proposing amendments that will prevent any religious discrimination within the sphere of federal authority.

This bill, by failing to find a reasonable compromise, a reasonable middle ground on the central question of marriage, is fundamentally flawed.

There is a second major flaw. The so-called protection that the government has offered for even basic religious freedom is, frankly, laughably inadequate. It is totally dishonest to suggest that it provides real protection.

The government has only proposed one meagre clause to protect religious freedom, a clause which states that religious officials will not be forced to solemnize marriages, but the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that this clause is ultra vires. It falls within the provincial responsibility for the solemnization of marriage. Frankly, this section of the bill illustrates the depth of the government's hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty in this legislation.

On the one hand, the government and its allies claim that any attempt to retain the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional on the basis of a decision the Supreme Court has not made and has refused to make. On the other hand, it is happy to insert into its bill a clause which the Supreme Court has already ruled is unconstitutional and outside of federal jurisdiction.

The government's constitutionally useless clause purports to protect churches and religious officials from being forced to solemnize same sex marriages against their beliefs, but this threat has always been only one of many possibilities. We note the Prime Minister did not choose to address a single other possibility. What churches, temples, synagogues and mosques fear today is not immediately the future threat of forced solemnization, but dozens of other threats to religious freedom, some of which have already begun to arrive and some of which will arrive more quickly in the wake of this bill.

As Catholic priest and writer, Father Raymond de Souza wrote last year in the prestigious religious journal First Things :

That is the worst-case scenario of state expansion. But state expansion will likely pass other milestones on its way there, eroding religious liberty on questions related to marriage. First it will be churches forced to rent out their halls and basements for a same-sex couple’s wedding reception. Then it will be religious charities forced to recognize employees in same-sex relationships as legally married. Then it will be religious schools not being allowed to fire a teacher in a same-sex marriage. Then it will be a hierarchical or synodal church not being allowed to discipline an errant priest or minister who performs a civilly legal but canonically illicit same-sex marriage. All of this can happen short of the worst-case scenario specifically exempted in the federal government’s proposed law.

We have already seen some of these things come to pass since this article was written in human rights tribunals and lower courts across the country. We have already seen a Catholic Knights of Columbus hall challenged before the B.C. Human Rights Commission for refusing to grant permission for a same sex wedding reception on church owned property.

We have seen civil marriage commissioners in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, who have religious or philosophical objections to same sex marriage, removed or threatened to be removed from positions by their government. We have heard the federal Minister responsible for Democratic Reform saying such employees should be punished or fired.

We have seen the Minister of International Trade saying that churches, including the Catholic Church in Quebec, have no right to be involved in any such debate. These may only be the beginning of a chilling effect on religious freedom for those groups and individuals who continue not to believe in same sex marriage.

Indeed, given the ferocity of the Prime Minister's new position, given the refusal to compromise, given the belief that any opposition to same sex marriage is akin to racial discrimination, the attack on religious freedom will inevitably continue on any aspect of religion that interfaces in any way with public life.

There are things, of course, that are within the federal sphere that can protect religious freedom. Parliament can ensure that no religious body will have its charitable status challenged because of its beliefs or practices regarding them. Parliament could ensure that beliefs and practices regarding marriage will not affect the eligibility of a church, synagogue, temple or religious organization to receive federal funds, for example, federal funds for seniors' housing or for immigration projects run by a church.

Parliament could ensure that the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Broadcasting Act are not interpreted in a way that would prevent the expression of religious beliefs regarding marriage.

Should the bill survive second reading, we will propose amendments in areas like these to ensure that in all areas subject to federal jurisdiction nobody will be discriminated against on the basis of their religious beliefs or practices regarding marriage.

The Prime Minister and several of his ministers have dishonestly claimed that the use of the notwithstanding clause was inevitable in order to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. That is not true, and such arguments are unworthy of a conscientious parliamentarian, especially someone who is a lawyer.

In fact, this Parliament can protect the institution of traditional marriage very well and respect the rights and privileges of those who chose another form of union, without departing from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in our Constitution.

Some people have suggested that we cannot do what we propose to do; that is, preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman while extending equal rights and other forms of union without invoking the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution.

I am going to take a little time on this. It is red herring argument, but we might as well spell it out. The attack is dishonest on several levels. First of all, and this is important when we start talking about the notwithstanding clause, the Liberal Party and this Prime Minister have no leg to stand on when it comes to preaching about protecting human rights and the notwithstanding clause. It was none other than Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, the author of the charter, who accepted the notwithstanding clause. Far from believing it to be a necessary evil to win support for the charter, he promised to use it. Specifically, he promised the late Cardinal Gerald Emmett Carter that he would use the notwithstanding clause to uphold Canada's legislation on abortion if it were struck down by a future Supreme Court.

In the more recent debate over same sex marriage, in an earlier phase of it, this Prime Minister promised that he would use the notwithstanding clause should a court ever infringe on religious freedom, although of course no one takes his commitments to religion seriously any more.

In fact, this Prime Minister was a member of Parliament from Quebec in 1989 when the provincial government in his province used the notwithstanding clause to ban English on commercial signs. He had next to nothing to say about it then and in the subsequent Liberal leadership race in less than a year he supported the notwithstanding clause.

I have said I would not use section 33 to preserve the traditional definition of marriage because quite simply it is not necessary in this case. The Supreme Court of Canada has not ruled on the constitutionality of the traditional definition of marriage. The court pointedly declined to do so in the recent same sex reference case, despite a clear request from the Prime Minister that it do so. In fact, the court openly speculated on the possibility that it could uphold the traditional definition. Therefore, there is simply no reason to use or discuss the notwithstanding clause in the absence of a Supreme Court decision, especially when it involves precedent based only on common law judgments.

Many legal experts, many of them coincidentally people who have been activists involved in these cases or who are close to the Liberal government, have said that the courts are likely to rule that the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional, but these same legal experts said that the Supreme Court would find the traditional definition of marriage unconstitutional in the reference case and they were wrong.

We have no reason to believe that the crystal balls in the justice department or in the law faculties are operating any better after the reference case than they did before it. Furthermore, up until now the courts have largely been interpreting a common law definition of marriage; in other words, previous court judgments not statutes reflecting the democratic will of Parliament. The courts have indicated clearly that statute law requires greater deference than common law.

In the case of R. v. Swain in 1991 then Chief Justice Lamer wrote in the majority the following:

Parliament, because of judicial deference, need not always choose the absolutely least intrusive means to attain its objectives but must come within a range of means which impair Charter rights as little as is reasonably possible. There is no room for judicial deference, however, where a common law, judge-made rule is challenged under the Charter.

There are several precedents of Parliament passing statutes without using the notwithstanding clause to reverse decisions made by the courts including the Supreme Court under common law and the courts have accepted these exercises of parliamentary sovereignty.

For instance, in 1995 Parliament passed Bill C-72 reversing the Supreme Court's decision in Daviault, a decision which allowed extreme intoxication as a criminal defence.

In 1996 Parliament passed Bill C-46 reversing the Supreme Court's decision in O'Connor, which allowed the accused to access medical records of the victims in sexual assault cases. When this new law was challenged in the subsequent Mills case, the Supreme Court ruled in a decision by Justices McLachlin and Iacobucci:

It does not follow from the fact that a law passed by Parliament differs from a regime envisaged by the Court in the absence of a statutory scheme, that Parliament's law is unconstitutional. Parliament may build on the Court's decision, and develop a different scheme as long as it remains constitutional. Just as Parliament must respect the Court's rulings, so the Court must respect Parliament's determination that the judicial scheme be improved. To insist on slavish conformity would belie the mutual respect that underpins the relationship between the courts and legislature that is so essential to our constitutional democracy.

We have every reason to believe that the Supreme Court, if it were eventually asked to rule on a new statutory definition of marriage combined with full and equal recognition of legal rights and benefits for same sex couples might well choose to act in a much more deferential manner toward the Canadian Parliament than lower courts showed toward ancient, British made, common law definitions.

I should point out that I am far from alone in saying this. Law Professor Alan Brudner at the University of Toronto wrote in the Globe and Mail :

--the judicially declared unconstitutionality of the common law definition of marriage does not entail the unconstitutionality of parliamentary legislation affirming the same definition.

He cited R. v. Swain and wrote, “For all we know, therefore, courts may uphold opposite sex marriage as a reasonable limit on the right against discrimination when the restriction comes from a democratic body”.

To those in government, in academia and the media who have argued that a pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause is the only way to uphold the traditional definition of marriage, he said the following:

These arguments misconceive the role of a notwithstanding clause in a constitutional democracy. Certainly, that role cannot be to protect laws suspected of being unconstitutional against judicial scrutiny....Rather, the legitimate role of a notwithstanding clause in a constitutional state is to provide a democratic veto over a judicial declaration of invalidity, where the court's reasoning discloses a failure to defer to the parliamentary body on a question of political discretion....But if that is true, then the notwithstanding clause should be invoked by Parliament only after the Supreme Court has ruled on the constitutionality of a law. And neither it, nor any provincial court outside Quebec has yet ruled on whether democratic legislation restricting marriage to heterosexual couples is valid.

I would add, and this is important, that Professor Brudner is neither a supporter of my party nor even a supporter of my position on the marriage issue. He was not even an adviser to my leadership campaign, unlike the principal organizer of a recent letter from a group of law professors backing the minister's decision.

In short, we have every reason to believe if the House moved to bring in a reasonable, democratic, compromise solution, one which defined in statute that marriage remains the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, which extended equal rights and benefits to couples living in other forms of unions, and which fully protected freedom of religion to the extent possible under federal law, that the Supreme Court of Canada would honour such a decision by Parliament.

The courts refused to answer the Prime Minister's question on the constitutional validity of the common law opposite sex definition of marriage because they did not want to pre-empt the work of Parliament. That suggests to me that they would be even more likely to defer to the judgment of Parliament when faced with a recently passed statute.

The members of the House, starting with the Minister of Justice, should actually read the same sex reference decision. I ask, if the Supreme Court actually believed that the traditional definition of marriage was a fundamental violation of human rights as, say, restricting aboriginal Canadians or non-Caucasian immigrants from voting, do we really think the Supreme Court would have engaged in an analysis of the possibility that it could uphold such a law even hypothetically? The answer is, of course not.

The government has also claimed and is still claiming that marriage between persons of the same sex is a fundamental right. That is another erroneous opinion and a totally specious argument the government wants to spread. Government spokespersons bring disgrace on themselves, however, when they wrongly try to invoke the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to cover up their threadbare arguments.

I want to address an even more fundamental question. That is the question of the issue of human rights as it pertains to same sex marriage and the use and the abuse of the term “human rights” in this debate which has been almost without precedent.

Fundamental human rights are not a magician's hat from which new rabbits can constantly be pulled out. The basic human rights we hold dear: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and equality before the law, the kind of rights that are routinely violated by the Prime Minister's good friends in states such as Libya and China, are well understood and recognized around the world. These rights do not depend on Liberal bromides or media spinners for their defence.

The Prime Minister cannot through grand rhetoric turn his political decision to change the definition of marriage into a basic human right because it is not. It is simply a political judgment. It is a valid political option if one wants to argue for it; it is a mistaken one in my view, but it is only a political judgment. Same sex marriage is not a human right. This is not my personal opinion. It is not the opinion of some legal adviser. This reality has already been recognized by such international bodies as the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

Mr. Speaker, I refer you to New Zealand's Quilter case. In 1997 the New Zealand court of appeal was asked to rule on the validity of the common law definition of marriage in light of the New Zealand bill of rights which, unlike our charter, explicitly prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. New Zealand's court ruled that the opposite sex requirement of marriage was not discriminatory. So the plaintiffs in this case made a complaint to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights that the New Zealand court violated the international covenant for the protection of rights to which New Zealand, like Canada, is a signator. But the UNCHR rejected this complaint in 2002, in effect upholding that same sex marriage is not a basic universal human right.

If same sex marriage were a fundamental human right, we have to think about the implications. If same sex marriage were a fundamental right, then countries as diverse as the United Kingdom, France, Denmark and Sweden are human rights violators. These countries, largely under left wing governments, have upheld the traditional definition of marriage while bringing in equal rights and benefits regimes for same sex couples, precisely the policy that I and the majority of the Conservative caucus propose.

Even those few countries that have brought in same sex marriage at the national level, currently only the Netherlands and Belgium, did not do so because their own courts or international bodies had defined this as a matter of human rights. They did so simply as the honest public policy choice of their legislatures. In fact, both the Netherlands and Belgium legislated some differences in same sex marriage as opposed to opposite sex marriage in many areas but particularly in areas like adoption.

In other words, no national or international court, or human rights tribunal at the national or international level, has ever ruled that same sex marriage is a human right.

The Minister of Justice, when he was an academic and not a politician, would have appreciated the distinction between a legal right conferred by positive law and a fundamental human right which all people should enjoy throughout the world. Today he is trying to conflate these two together, comparing a newly invented Liberal policy to the basic and inalienable rights and freedoms of humanity.

I have to say the government appears incapable of making these distinctions. On the one hand the Liberals are friends of dictatorships that routinely violate human rights to whom they look for photo ops or corporate profits. On the other hand they condemn those who disagree with their political decisions as deniers of human rights, even though they held the same positions themselves a few years, or even a few months ago.

Quite frankly the Liberal Party, which drapes itself in the charter like it drapes itself in the flag, is in a poor position to boast about its human rights record. Let us not forget it was the Liberal Party that said none is too many when it came to Jews fleeing from Hitler. It was the Liberal Party that interned Japanese Canadians in camps on Canada's west coast, an act which Pierre Trudeau refused to apologize or make restitution for, leaving it to Brian Mulroney to see justice done. Just as it was Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Diefenbaker who took the great initiatives against apartheid, Mr. Diefenbaker with his Bill of Rights, and I did not see a notwithstanding clause in that. It was the Liberal Party that imposed the War Measures Act.

Today it is the Liberal Party that often puts its business interests ahead of the cause of democracy and human rights in places like China. Recently in China it was the member for Calgary Southeast who had to act on human rights while the Prime Minister went through the diplomatic moves.

The Liberal Party has spent years repressing free speech rights of independent political organizations from Greenpeace to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation that might want to speak out at election time. It has consistently violated property rights and has put the rights of criminals ahead of those of law abiding gun owners. The Liberal government has ignored the equality rights of members of minority religious groups in education in the province of Ontario even after international tribunals have demanded action.

I am not here to say that this party's or this country's record on human rights is perfect. It is far from perfect; we can read about it in any number of places. However, the Liberal Party of Canada is simply in no position, either past or present, to lecture anyone about charter rights or human rights.

In this debate the government has resorted at times to demagoguery, attacking our position with equal intellectual dishonesty. The government has demonstrated its fundamental disregard for the opinions of a majority of Canadian men and women of good will.

In particular, it has been unforgiveably insensitive with regard to all cultural communities in this country for which marriage is a most deeply rooted value.

Nowhere have the Liberals been more vociferous in their attempts to link same sex marriage to minority rights than among Canada's ethnic and cultural minority communities. Yet at the same time, they have clearly wanted these communities excluded from this debate. Why? Because, to their embarrassment, the vast majority of Canada's cultural communities, setting aside those groups dependent on Liberal funding, see through the Liberals' attempt to link basic human rights to the government's opposition to their traditional practices of marriage.

Many new Canadians chose this country, fleeing regimes that did and do persecute religious, ethnic and political minorities. They know what real human rights abuses are. They know that recognizing traditional marriage in law while granting equal benefits to same sex couples is not a human rights abuse akin to what they may have seen in Rwanda or China or Iran.

What these new Canadians also understand, and what this government does not, is that there are some things more fundamental than the state and its latest fad. New Canadians know that marriage and family are not the creature of the state but pre-exist the state and that the state has some responsibility to uphold and defend these institutions.

New Canadians know that their deeply held cultural traditions and religious belief in the sanctity of marriage as a union of one man and one woman will be jeopardized by a law which declares them unconstitutional and brands their supporters as human rights violators.

New Canadians know that their cultural values are likely to come under attack if this law is passed. They know that we are likely to see disputes in the future over charitable status for religious or cultural organizations that oppose same sex marriage, or over school curriculum and hiring standards in both public and private religious and cultural minority schools.

New Canadians, many of whom have chosen Canada as a place where they can practise their religion and raise their family in accordance with their beliefs and without interference from the state, know that these legal fights will limit and restrict their freedom to honour their faith and their cultural practices.

Of course, in all of these cases, courts and human rights commissions will attempt to balance the basic human rights of freedom of religion and expression with the newly created legal right to same sex marriage, but as our justice critic has remarked, we have a pattern: wherever courts and tribunals are faced with a clash between equality rights and religious rights, equality rights seem to trump.

The Liberals may blather about protecting cultural minorities, but the fact is that undermining the traditional definition of marriage is an assault on multiculturalism and the practices in those communities.

All religious faiths traditionally have upheld the belief that marriage is a child-centred union of a man and a woman, whether Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh or Muslim. All of these cultural communities, rooted in those faiths, will find their position in society marginalized.

I believe the Liberal vision of multiculturalism is really just a folkloristic one. The Liberals invite Canadians from cultural communities to perform folk dances and wear colourful costumes, but they are not interested in the values, beliefs and traditions of new Canadians unless they conform to the latest fashions of Liberalism. All races, colours and creeds are welcome in Liberal Canada as long as they check their faith and conscience at the door.

That may be the Liberal vision for Canada in the 21st century, but it is not ours. In our Canada, vibrant cultural communities will be allowed to share not only their food and their dress but their beliefs and aspirations for themselves and their families.

The conscience of all members of this House is involved in the decision we must reach. I urge all the men and women sitting here today to set aside all partisan considerations and all personal ambitions, in this extraordinary situation, and to listen to the voice of their conscience and the voice of their duty, as representatives of the people of Canada. Yes, this decision may have repercussions in a day or in a month, but we must make it while thinking of past and future generations.

The decision that we are being asked to make on this bill is a difficult one. For many, the decision we make on the bill will be one of the most difficult decisions they will be called upon to make as members of Parliament, but before we all do so, let us remember one thing clearly, because this is where I object most strongly to what the Prime Minister said.

Regardless of what the Prime Minister says, we all do have a choice in the position we take here. We all know that the House is closely divided. I think we all know that if it were a truly free vote, if the ministers like the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the government House leader, the Minister of Natural Resources, the associate Minister of National Defence, the Minister of State for Northern Ontario, and many others, were free to vote their consciences, we know this bill would fail.

This bill is too important to be decided on the basis of a whipped vote, whether the formal whip that is being applied to a minister, or the informal carrots and sticks that are being applied to other members. I appeal to the consciences of those on the government side.

I know that many of the government members in their hearts believe in the traditional definition of marriage and know that we are talking about this today only because the Prime Minister has literally no other legislation for Parliament.

I ask them to join with us to defeat the bill and urge the adoption of another which reflects the practice in other advanced democracies and which reflects our own honourable traditions of compromise.

There are fundamental questions here. Will this society be one which respects the longstanding basic social institution of marriage or will it be one that believes even our most basic structures can be reinvented overnight for the sake of political correctness?

Will this society be one which respects and honours the religious and cultural minorities or one which gradually whittles away their freedoms and their ability to practise their beliefs?

Will this be a country in which Parliament will rule on behalf of the people or one where a self-selected group of lawyers or experts will define the parameters of right and wrong?

All of these questions are in our hands to answer. It is up to all of our consciences. It is not what the Prime Minister and the PMO advisers tell us is most expedient; it should be based on our consciences and what our constituents tell us to do.

Mr. Speaker, before I leave the floor, I would like to move an amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following:

This House declines to give second reading to Bill C-38, an act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes, since the principle of the bill fails to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others and fails to recognize and extend to other civil unions established under the laws of a province, the same rights, benefits and obligations as married persons.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-38, an act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-38, the civil marriage act. I rise in support of a Canada in which liberties are safeguarded, rights are protected and the people of this land are treated as equals under the law.

This is an important day. The attention of our nation is focused on this chamber in which John Diefenbaker introduced the Bill of Rights, and in which Pierre Trudeau fought to establish the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Our deliberations will not be merely about a piece of legislation or sections of legal text. More deeply they will be about the kind of nation we are today and the nation we want to be.

This bill protects minority rights. This bill affirms the charter guarantee of religious freedom. It is that straightforward and it is that important.

That is why I stand before members here today and before the people of our country to say that I believe in and I will fight for the Charter of Rights. I believe in and I will fight for a Canada that respects the foresight and the vision of those who created and entrenched the charter. I believe in and I will fight for a future in which generations of Canadians to come, Canadians born here and abroad, have the opportunity to value the charter as we do today, as an essential pillar of our democratic freedom.

There have been a number of arguments put forward by those who do not support this bill. It is important and it is respectful to examine them and to assess them. Let me do so now.

First, some have claimed that, once this bill becomes law, religious freedoms will be less than fully protected. This is demonstrably untrue. As it pertains to marriage, the government’s legislation affirms the charter guarantee: that religious officials are free to perform such ceremonies in accordance with the beliefs of their faith.

In this, we are guided by the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada, which makes clear that in 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. Period. That is why this legislation is about civil marriage, not religious marriage.

Moreover, and this is crucially important, the Supreme Court has declared unanimously:

--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 facts are plain. Religious leaders who preside over marriage ceremonies must and will be guided by what they believe. If they do not wish to celebrate marriages for same sex couples, that is their right. The Supreme Court says so and the charter says so.

One final observation on this aspect of the issue: Religious leaders have strong views both for and against this legislation. They should express them. Certainly, many of us in this House, myself included, have a strong faith, and we value that faith and its influence on the decisions we make.

But all of us have been elected to serve here as parliamentarians. And, as public legislators, we are responsible for serving all Canadians and protecting the rights of all Canadians.

We will be influenced by our faith but we also have an obligation to take the widest perspective—to recognize that one of the great strengths of Canada is its respect for the rights of each and every individual, to understand that we must not shrink from the need to reaffirm the rights and responsibilities of Canadians in an evolving society.

The second argument ventured by opponents of the bill is that government ought to hold a national referendum on this issue. I reject this, not out of a disregard for the view of the people, but because it offends the very purpose of the charter.

The charter was enshrined to ensure that the rights of minorities are not subjected--are never subjected--to the will of the majority. The rights of Canadians who belong to a minority group must always be protected by virtue of their status as citizens, regardless of their numbers, and these rights must never be left vulnerable to the impulses of the majority.

We embrace freedom and equality in theory. We must also embrace them in fact.

Third, some have counseled the government to extend to gays and lesbians the right to “civil union”. This would give same sex couples many of the rights of a wedded couple, but their relationships would not legally be considered marriage. In other words, they would be equal, but not quite as equal as the rest of Canadians.

The courts have clearly and consistently ruled that this option would offend the equality provisions of the charter. For instance, the British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that, “Marriage is the only road to true equality for same sex couples. Any other form of recognition of same sex relationships... falls short of true equality”.

Put simply, we must always remember that “separate but equal” is not equal. What is more, those who call for the establishment of civil unions fail to understand that the Government of Canada does not have the constitutional jurisdiction to do so. Only the provinces have that. Only the provinces could define such a regime, and they could define it in 10 different ways, and some jurisdictions might not bother to define it at all. There would be uncertainty. There would be confusion. There would certainly not be equality.

Fourth, some are urging the government to respond to the decisions of the courts by getting out of the marriage business altogether. That would mean no more civil weddings for any couples.

It is worth noting that this idea was rejected by the major religions themselves when their representatives appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in 2003. Moreover, it would seem to be an extreme and counterproductive response for the government to deny civil marriage to opposite sex couples simply so that it can keep it from same sex couples. To do so would simply be to replace one form of discrimination with another.

Finally, there are some who oppose this legislation who would have the government use the notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights to override the courts and reinstate the traditional definition of marriage. And really, this is the fundamental issue here.

Understand that in seven provinces and one territory, the lawful union of two people of the same sex in civil marriage is already the law of the land. The debate here today is not about whether to change the definition of marriage—it has been changed. The debate comes down to whether we should override a right that is now in place. The debate comes down to the charter, the protection of minority rights, and whether the federal government should invoke the notwithstanding clause.

I know that some think we should use the clause. For example, some religious leaders feel this way. I respect their candour in publicly recognizing that because same sex marriage is already legal in most of the country, the only way—the only way—to again make civil marriage the exclusive domain of opposite sex couples is to use the notwithstanding clause.

Ultimately, there is only one issue before the House in this debate. For most Canadians, in most parts of our country, same sex marriage is already the law of the land. Thus, the issue is not whether rights are to be granted. The issue is whether rights that have been granted are to be taken away.

Some are frank and straightforward and say yes. Others have not been so candid. Despite being confused--

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, today and tomorrow we will continue third reading of Bill C-29, the Patent Act. This will be followed by second reading of Bill C-31 and Bill C-32, respecting international trade and foreign affairs.

We will then proceed to second reading of Bill C-28, which amends the Food and Drugs Act; report stage of Bill C-8, the public service bill; report stage of Bill C-3, the Coast Guard bill; and report stage of Bill S-17, respecting tax treaties.

On Monday we will begin with report stage and third reading of Bill C-24, the equalization bill. If this is completed, we will then return to the previous list where we left off.

Tuesday and Thursday of next week shall be allotted days.

Next Wednesday we will commence second reading of Bill C-38, the civil marriage bill.

With respect to the question on the Judges Act, that will be forthcoming in due course.

Civil Marriage Act

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-38, an act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Criminal Code

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a bill that needs serious consideration. We must recognize the seriousness of the problem. Drug users are disproportionately involved in fatal accidents. A study in Quebec determined that more than 30% of fatal accidents in that province involved drugs or a combination of drugs and alcohol.

A Traffic Injury Research Foundation poll in 2001 found that close to 20% of Canadian drivers had driven within two hours of taking a potentially impairing drug: over the counter, prescription or illegal. The Ontario Student Drug Use Survey in 2003 found that close to 20% of high school drivers in the province reported driving within one hour of using cannabis at least once in the preceding year.

We must ensure the enforcement of current laws. Driving while impaired by alcohol or a drug is currently a criminal offence and can result in severe penalties including a maximum penalty of life imprisonment if it causes the death of another person.

Under paragraph 253(a) of the Criminal Code, it is an offence for anyone to operate a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment while his or her ability to operate it is impaired by alcohol or a drug. For paragraph 253(a) drug impaired driving investigations, officers usually rely upon symptoms of impairment, driving behaviour and witness testimony.

Currently, there is no authority in the Criminal Code for police to demand physical sobriety tests or bodily fluid samples for paragraph 253(a) impaired driving investigations. However, if a driver voluntarily participates in physical sobriety tests, the evidence is admissible in court.

There is no legal limit offence for drugs as there is in paragraph 253(b) of the Criminal Code for alcohol. Unlike alcohol, for the vast majority of drugs, there is no scientific consensus on the threshold of drug concentration levels in the body that causes impairment and makes driving hazardous. Technology to detect drug concentration at roadside is neither an available nor effective option.

In my riding of Scarborough—Agincourt we have an epidemic of grow house operations. We had three houses that were recently busted by the police. Certainly cannabis and the use of cannabis is something that is of importance to me. Ensuring that we have on the books regulations that will allow the police to do their work is something that is of great importance to the people of Canada.

How do we go about reforming our current laws? The proposed reforms would improve investigations of Criminal Code drug impaired driving offences by authorizing police to demand: first, standardized field sobriety tests, SFST, where there is a reasonable suspicion that a driver has a drug in the body. SFSTs are divided attention tests that evaluate a subject's ability to multitask. They are administered at the roadside.

Second, drug recognition expert, DRE, evaluations where the officer reasonably believes that a drug impaired driving offence was committed. This includes a situation where a driver fails the SFST. These are administered at the police station. Third, a sample of a bodily substance, blood, urine, or oral fluid, should the DRE officer identify that impairment is caused by a specific family of drugs.

Refusal or failure to comply with any of these demands by police would be a criminal offence, punishable by the same Criminal Code penalties as refusing a demand for a breath test for alcohol. A minimum of a $600 fine would apply for a first offence.

It is very important that we understand that the value of proven technologies to detect such drugs is something that we need to examine.

DRE evaluations were first developed by the Los Angeles Police Department and standardized by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in the United States in the early 1980s. They are used in most U.S. states, Australia, New Zealand and in some European countries.

Their reliability is documented in studies by John Hopkins University, which determined that DRE trained officers were over 90% accurate in determining impairment and the type of drug that caused impairment.

Canada began using DRE evaluations in 1995. Police in B.C., Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia use them but can only currently do so when the suspect voluntarily participates.

Besides helping to keep drug impaired drivers off the nation's roadways, DRE evaluations can also rule out drug impairment in drivers who have a medical condition and steer these people toward appropriate medical attention. Drug recognition experts can assist in other situations too, such as when dealing with intoxicated prisoners and assessing whether they require emergency medical services.

How do we go about helping the police use drug impairment tests? To successfully implement these proposed legislative reforms and enhance the overall capacity of police to address drug impairment in Canada, $6.49 million in new funding over three years will be used to train DRE officers and instructors nationwide through a train the trainers approach.

An additional $500,000 for research and evaluation will help ensure all levels of government better understand the nature and scope of the drug impaired driving problem in Canada. This work will involve evaluating the process and the effectiveness of the DRE program in the law enforcement community.

These investments build on $5 million in initial funding provided through Canada's renewed drug strategy, $910,000, and reallocated from within the RCMP, another $4.1 million. As a result, $11.9 million in total funding will have been provided by the Government of Canada to address drug impaired driving.

By 2007-08 Canada will have an estimated 3,522 officers trained in standardized field sobriety tests, 394 DRE trained officers, and 175 DRE instructors. This level of expertise will then allow ongoing training as needed as part of regular police operations.

The measures announced today deliver on the government's commitment to address drug impaired driving while reforms to modernize Canada's cannabis laws are also being proposed. This legislation will however enhance investigations of driving while impaired by any drug, over the counter, prescription or illegal, not just cannabis.

The proposed legislative reforms respond to parliamentary committees that recommended consideration of ways to strengthen the laws regarding investigation of drug impaired driving. These include: the House of Commons Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs that studied Bill C-38, cannabis reform, in the fall of 2003; the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs of 2002, and the 1999 Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

It is important that we move very quickly to reform legislation that we have already in place. Indeed, in some areas we have grow operations that are rampant and have gone out of control. However, if there is a wish for people to have marijuana, then the suppliers will continue doing this. If we are able to deter people from driving under the influence of cannabis, and if this legislation is in place, it will certainly curtail accidents, save lives on the highway, and give the police the tools they need, as well as the funding, to ensure that we have safer highways and safer streets.

Contraventions Act

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after seven years in this illustrious place, we develop habits, some good, some bad. It is my practice, perhaps a bad habit, to start all my remarks by saying that I am pleased to speak on Bill x , y or z . I cannot say that I am pleased today, because I am tired of addressing this topic in the House time and time again.

Let us recall the various stages. We have had thorough debates in the special committee struck to look into the issue. This special committee made recommendations, which we debated. Then came Bill C-38, followed by Bill C-10, in the previous Parliament, both of which went through first, second and third reading, with more discussions at each stage. work was done in committee. The legislation died in the previous Parliament, because of the lack of political will of the current Prime Minister, who did not dare to go before the voters after decriminalizing marijuana. He probably did not want to leave himself open to criticism from the Conservative Party.

Because of the Prime Minister's lack of political courage, here we are starting all over again the whole process of passing a bill we have supported on many occasions already.

We supported it because we base our position on three premises. First, a totally protectionist approach does not work. It costs a fortune. A perfect example of such protectionist approach is what is going on in the United States, where we can see billions of dollars being dished out with unconvincing results to say the least. Second, when all is said and done, marijuana remains harmful to health. This needs to be taken into consideration in taking a position. Third, there is a principle in criminal law whereby the punishment must not be disproportionate to the offence.

Based on these three premises, we support the bill before us, Bill C-17. It is important when we debate an issue such as this that we target what we are talking about. We must be clear that we are talking about decriminalization and not legalization. The public often mixes up these terms. Decriminalization still carries with it penalties. If Bill C-17 is passed, a person caught in possession of a small amount of marijuana will be penalized. It will still be illegal, but the penalty will not be criminal, in that the person will not have a criminal record.

In my opinion, a criminal record is tragic for 18 year olds. My colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, an eminent criminal defence lawyer who has defended young people caught with two or three joints in their pockets, made me realize this. A criminal record has major consequences on a young person's career and ability to travel to the United States, among other places. God knows, in order to get to many places, Canadians have to go through the United States. Having a criminal record would make it impossible to travel to many places in the world. A young person could end up with a criminal record for many years and be prevented from travelling or getting certain jobs. For possession of two or three joints, the consequences are excessive. The person ends up in a state far worse than the one they started in.

Some witnesses and members of the Conservative Party have said that decriminalization, which, I repeat, is different than legalization, sends the wrong message to young people.

According to them, if the members passed this bill, the use of marijuana would increase almost magically by leaps and bounds.

Yet studies in other countries, Australia for one, where certain states have decriminalized marijuana, have shown that this is not the case. What they do show is that decriminalization of small amounts does not lead to increased use by young people. Instead of putting money and resources into repressive tactics, the money can be used to set up preventive programs explaining that marijuana is not good for the health. That money from Ottawa should go to the provinces since education is their responsibility. Good prevention is better than bad repression, which often tends to have disastrous consequences.

Another reason for our support of the bill is that, in the past Parliament, one of our proposed amendments became part of the bill. A person found in possession of a crop of one to three plants would not be put into the criminal system, in other words would be considered almost a case of possession rather than of cultivation.

We wanted to avoid the situation of an occasional user like the guy with his one plant on the window sill being forced by fear of criminalization to get his supply from the black market, which as hon. members know is controlled by organized crime. That was what we were trying to avoid. I am very pleased that this suggestion got adopted. It was, moreover, supported pretty effectively by my NDP colleague who is going to speak next, their House leader. Thanks to her work and that of our Liberal colleagues, worthwhile efforts for once from them, this recommendation was adopted.

I will make a quick aside if I may, though I have so much to say. There was reference just now to prevention. Let us put police officers and the forces of law and order in a position to really make a difference. Now we can talk about organized crime.

Last week, I tabled a bill on the reversal of the burden of proof for any person convicted of being associated with a criminal organization. I am sure that hon. members read it with great interest. This initiative was extremely well received by police officers and by crime reporters, including Guy Ouellette, Michel Auger, who wrote about it this morning in Le Journal de Montréal , and Yves Boisvert, who mentioned it in La Presse . They praised the bill.

If the government really wants to fight organized crime, it will support, along with the NDP, the Conservative Party of Canada and, of course, the Bloc Québécois, the bill tabled last week.

As time is passing, I will simply point out two things. Today, we have the opportunity, by passing this bill, to do something that will benefit everyone. We will decriminalize the mere use of marijuana for personal purposes. It means more resources will available for prevention, instead of being used for punitive action, which is totally useless. It also means that police officers can stop spending so much effort going after small consumers or people who have a small amount of marijuana in their possession. Instead, they can focus on the real issues, on the areas where they can make a difference and where the public wants them to make a difference, namely in the fight against that societal, economic and political plague, organized crime.