Debates of Dec. 6th, 2006

Marriage

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not a motion to revisit. The member should read the motion. It is a motion that calls on the government to introduce legislation to restore the definition of marriage. That bill cannot be introduced without facing a charter challenge.

A bill is not introduced to invoke the notwithstanding clause. That is the purview of the governor in council. I think the member is mistaken.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, a pair of my constituents wrote to me regarding this issue and wanted the debate reopened, unlike the many letters I received last time. I will tell those constituents that there was a lengthy debate on this. It was one of the longest debates on any law in the history of Canada. Detailed arguments on both sides were outlined very clearly. Constituents can read those debates. There are many people on both sides of the issue who just do not want to rehash the same debate all over again. It has been done, a very divisive debate in Canadian society.

The other thing is that it is straightforward in the laws of Canada now, in the charter, that one cannot discriminate or treat Canadians unequally. The only way around that is to change the charter and there is no party in the House of Commons that wants to do that.

I agree fully with my colleague's analysis of this particular motion. In fact, I was thinking of asking the Speaker to rule it out of order for the same reason in that the motion asks to do something which has already been proven by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional. Why would we embark on this when the Prime Minister said he would not invoke the notwithstanding clause?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the last word from me will simply be that if we want to move forward on this motion, which may or may not in some people's view, and I will respect their opinions, have some technical difficulties or reasons that it should not happen, my recommendation would be for the government to table a bill in the House as soon as possible to reinstate the traditional definition of marriage.

[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.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if this motion were to pass, we would create two different categories of same sex persons in this country: one group who are already married, as one group would be grandfathered by this motion, and another group who cannot be married.

I would like the hon. member to tell me, does he not see this as being a challenge under the charter, when a group of people can have two different sets of rights and there is absolutely no logical or legal reason for denying the other group the same rights? This in fact contravenes the charter. Could the member explain that to me?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member totally misunderstood the motion. I would be surprised if she had read it with that kind of question. In fact, the motion makes it very clear that we are looking for the protection of the rights of all Canadians whether they are married or they enter into same sex relationships.

What the member does not understand is that a large majority of Canadians, when polled on the question, have responded by saying that they are totally in favour of retaining the traditional definition of marriage provided that the rights of all others are protected who may not choose that kind of relationship.

I want to assure the member that if this motion passes in the House, I am absolutely confident that we will bring forward legislation which will address the needs of those who do not want to be married in the traditional sense of the word.

[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, the member knows very well that the motion actually addresses that issue in clear and no uncertain terms. In fact, the motion says that existing same sex marriages will be respected in whatever legislation that we bring forward. I know he is very upset. He does not like to hear the truth because he has a fixed ideology that he is not going to diverge from.

We have put a lot of care into crafting this motion to ensure that the charter rights of all Canadians are respected in their entirety. I believe this is a motion that is going to protect religious rights. We are not taking away the rights of those who believe that their marriages should be respected. We are saying that we believe that the traditional definition of marriage which has existed for millennia should be maintained and coupled with other legislation that will do the same thing, but not require a redefinition of the traditional definition of marriage.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I know it is getting rather late in the evening, but there was quite a lot of noise during the last response. I would ask all hon. members to respect the speaker and respect the person answering questions.

The hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North.

[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.

[An hon. member]

You guys agreed to it.

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

I heard that remark, Mr. Speaker, but I do not recall ever being told about amendments. As a result, that was why I made the observation about being unable to bring amendments to this.

We are all tired, it is almost 11:00 p.m., and I think a lot of us have not had the opportunity to leave. Therefore, I leave two issues. First, it is the first time I have ever heard of a motion asking for permission to bring in legislation. Second, we do not have the ability to bring in amendments to a motion that should pass.

Let me close by saying that the constituents I represent in Thunder Bay—Superior North, as well as myself, still support the traditional definition of marriage as between a man a woman. However, for the reasons that I stated, there is political opportunism here that I do not think should be counselled by the chamber and I would hope members would reconsider their position on putting forward this motion tomorrow.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the highest respect for the member and I always have. Among other things, he is the oldest member in the House. By the very virtue of that, we have to respect him because we are supposed to respect our elders.

I am sure the member will remember, and I do not know what year it was, a number of years back when the issue of capital punishment came up. At that time, the government of the day put forward a motion that asked whether the House wanted to have it considered. The motion was very similar motion to this one.

I also challenge the member. If this motion is defeated, it basically shuts the door. If this motion is passed, then it opens the door so the whole issue can be reconsidered. I urge the member to therefore vote in favour of this motion so it does not die due to a lack of interest by the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend referred to age in the House. I know he must be much younger than I, but I do not recall sitting in the House for the last 18 years and the death penalty being debated. I am not referring to my colleague's age, but I think that was during Mr. Diefenbaker's time.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

That was a long time before. That was before you and I were here.

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

I yield to the member's knowledge, but during my time in the House, I have never heard the government ask for permission to bring in legislation.

[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, a lot of things were happening at that time and a lot of pressures were coming from all corners. I thought the legislation was well presented and well debated. Everybody had an opinion. There was as much intensity involved in that legislation as I think on other issues that had a moral consequence for the people of Canada. I thought the whole process at that time was as good as I have seen.

I have no other comments to make other than to say it was legislation presented and debated in the House, sent to committee and came back for second reading and third reading in its proper form.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must draw this to the attention of my hon. colleague's and other members of the House. Every member of the House, even those elected as recently as January, have already been present for quite a number of motions asking to bring in legislation. They are called ways and means motions and every member in the House has been here for numerous of those. The hon. member, who is a long-serving member, has also been here for those.

I realize we do not all read books, but I am informed that is the express intent of a ways and means motion. It is asks permission to bring in legislation, and we have all been here for that. Even the recently elected MPs as of January have been present for numerous ways and means motions, and that is the very intent of what we have before us this evening.

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

Mr. Speaker, maybe members of the opposition would request to bring in legislation, but I cannot recall where the government of the day would request our permission to bring in legislation. Who knows?

If we can establish something, let us stop referring to age in this discussion. That is the most admirable group of rookies I have seen in a long time. Maybe we should drop that subject in the conversation.

However, I do not recall anything where the government of the day does not bring in the proper legislation.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has a Charter for Rights and Freedoms of which we are all very proud. It is part of our Constitution. What we are debating today in the general sense would be unconstitutional. It would be illegal .

As passionate as people feel on any side of this, there is no use in debating it as it would be breaking the law. It would be unconstitutional under the present Constitution, of which many, if not all, parliamentarians are very proud. Certainly our party will stand by and defend the rights of the people of Canada as defined by the Constitution.

There are two particular rights in the charter that are pertinent to the discussion we are having tonight. One is the right of religious freedom. My colleague from the NDP referred to it. However, on the other side of the coin, the Supreme Court has always protected freedom of religion. Churches can choose not perform same sex marriages, and that gives respect to the right of religious freedom.

On the other side there is the right of equality. All Canadians have to be treated equally. That is a right under the Constitution, so we cannot make a law that denigrates that right by treating Canadians differently.

The one way to achieve that is to amend the Constitution. It is parliamentarians and not judges who make the law. Parliamentarians wrote the charter and the Constitution, and those can be amended. That is open to any party to propose in the House of Commons. At any time, any Parliament could move to change that.

I am quite proud that all the parties in this Parliament, in the House of Commons, have said they refuse to do that. They refuse to change the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because all Canadians should be treated equally. I am proud members of Parliament have made that decision on the charter. For that reason, this debate should not proceed because it could not result in a legal outcome.

In closing, I am proud of parliamentarians from all parties for refusing to override the rights of small groups and minorities or the rights of any Canadian to be equal. I will stand by that as my input to the debate.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments, but I do have a question for him.

I heard him repeat again what we have heard before in this chamber on this issue, and that is that somehow it is against the Charter of Rights to leave the definition of marriage as being the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

He talks about the opinions he and his party have received. Is he aware that there are numerous eminent constitutional scholars who disagree with them quite vehemently. They have actually stated that retaining the traditional definition of marriage is no such violation of the Charter of Rights provided there is substantial legislation to preserve the rights of same sex couples to be united in a civil union?

I would remind him that different groups in our society have special rights, where there is not an equality of rights. I look at our first nations. They have the food ceremonial and social right to fish. We do not scream bloody murder about that. We do not say that is a violation of the Charter of Rights. It is constitutional. There are many other instances like that, so there is legal opinion on the other side of the debate.

Has he investigated those opinions himself?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy if the member could come up with a valid example. First nations people have inherent rights. Affirmative action rights are allowed in the Constitution.

I also would be happy if he could table the opinions of those experts. The last time we had this debate, which was the longest debate in Canadian history, every judicial expert in Canada and dozens of academics who were credible on this topic, agreed that such a law was unconstitutional.

[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?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am not personally aware of any examples where there has been a problem. However, it is a huge balancing act when we have two separate rights, the right of religious freedom and the right of equality. It is almost inevitable that there will be some clashes of these rights and overlap. It will require the good and sensitive judgment of Canadians. Canadians have a great history of coming up with solutions to difficult problems. As much as possible, each right must be given the respect it deserves. We will leave that to the leaders of this country. Hopefully they can keep making the decisions as they have been and not lead to problems.