Bill C-38 (Historical)

Civil Marriage Act

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

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

Civil Marriage Act

[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.