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.

Presence in Gallery

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue this afternoon with second reading of Bill C-38, the civil marriage bill. This will be followed by consideration of Senate amendments of Bill C-29, the patent bill, and Bill C-12, the quarantine bill.

We will then return to second reading of Bill C-43, the budget bill, and eventually the third readings of: Bill C-23, the HRDC bill; Bill C-22, the social development bill; Bill C-26, the border services bill; and Bill C-9, the Quebec development bill.

Tomorrow we will begin with Bill C-43. If this is completed, we will then return to the list just given.

Next week is a break week. Since it happens to coincide this year with Passover, I would like to take this opportunity to extend to Canadians of the Jewish faith best wishes on this holiday.

After today there are 35 sitting days for the House before its scheduled adjournment on June 23. The government hopes that the House will be able to complete all stages of Bill C-38 and Bill C-43 by that date, which means that the bills will have to go to and be reported from committees in time for report stage and third reading in that limited time. That is why we have given priority to these bills in order to arrive at the supply votes.

The government is obliged to designate by that date 6 of those 35 days as allotted days or opposition days. Since we do not face the logistical and timing difficulties that I have just described vis-à-vis these two major bills, it seems logical and sensible to ask the House to deal with those second readings before proceeding with business such as opposition days, which are not followed by subsequent legislative stages.

If the members opposite would not be so sneaky in trying to change the Standing Orders, in fact, we could perhaps have the kind of dialogue that the hon. member is suggesting we have.

Civil Marriage Act

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to join in this debate. A lot of members in the House say in their preambles that it is a pleasure to join in the debate, but I do so sincerely because as the member for Cape Breton--Canso I stand here understanding how the people of my constituency feel on this particular issue. I stand today to represent their views.

I think it would be insightful to look at the constituency I represent. For the most part, my constituency is rural. The towns of Glace Bay and Port Hawkesbury stand as the largest urban centres, but the greater population comes from the smaller communities, many of them coastal communities. Many people in my area work in the fishery as harvesters and processors. They farm. They work the forests. A fair number work in manufacturing. I am confident that the people I represent are honest, good, hard-working Canadians who believe in family and in their community.

As a candidate prior to being elected to the 37th Parliament in November 2000, I made the commitment to my constituents that before voting on any change to the traditional definition of marriage I would consult with the community and I would allow their opinion to weigh heavily on my position.

Upon being elected, I was determined to honour that commitment. In the fall of 2003, I undertook an extensive communications strategy with constituents so as to determine their thoughts and their views on this particular issue. A communication piece was delivered to every household in my riding, outlining what I believe was a very balanced presentation. The piece addressed both the pros and cons of the essence of the issue. A survey was included that sought opinions on same sex benefits, on civil unions, on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and of course on same sex marriage.

The results were very revealing. Over 82% of the respondents voiced their strong opposition to any change in the traditional definition of marriage.

I met with various groups, with clergy, college students, sexual diversity support groups and community leaders, and I hosted town hall meetings. I also received an overwhelming number of unsolicited representations. I recall being at numerous community events. I remember walking through the mall with my children. I remember being in arenas throughout the constituency. People were very forthcoming and forthright in coming to me to offer their opinions.

To put into context just how mobilized my constituents became on this issue, I can think back to another very significant event that Canadians experienced in recent years. While our previous Prime Minister worked to stake out our country's position on the American initiative into Iraq, I remember vividly how Canadians were seized by the potential of Canada going to war. I remember the great number of interventions I received on that particular topic.

Even the response to our position on Iraq pales in comparison to how engaged my constituents became on the issue of same sex marriage and changing the traditional definition of marriage. What I heard loud and clear from my constituents was that although traditional marriage is not perfect it remains the single best relationship in which men relate to women, in which women relate to men and in which children relate to parents.

When entering into marriage, a couple joins in an institution which is based on four pillars: first, each is of a certain age; second, they are not family; third, marriage is only between two people; and fourth, marriage is between one man and one woman. To compromise any of these principles, do we not compromise the institution?

I want the House to know, unequivocally, and I want it stated on the record that there is absolutely no desire on the part of the people I represent to deny the rights of any individual. They truly believe in equal rights and benefits of all central institutions to same sex couples. What they do believe is that marriage is an historic religious union and that altering this institution would be a great disservice to Canadian families. Marriage predates states, governments and charters and it has served us well over time.

What I also heard from many people was their genuine concern about any tampering with the institution of marriage. Many believed that the government bill was well-intentioned, however they saw it more like a social experiment, one which has not been embraced in other parts of the world which might have considered it. Their sense was that the government was moving too fast to alter this age old institution without the benefit of research or study. They questioned whether the change in this definition would truly provide the intended outcome, that being an attitudinal change on the part of some citizens.

Being armed with the confidence that I understood the concerns that were being articulated by my constituents, my position on the issue was even more solidified in November 2003.

During his acceptance speech at a national leadership convention, our new Prime Minister stated just what he would expect from his caucus MPs. He said that what we needed to be successful as a truly national federal party would be members who represented the interests of their constituents to Ottawa, not represent Ottawa's interests to their constituents. Had there been any doubt in my mind or any reservation in my conviction, there was no longer.

I fully appreciate the reality of today's family living in an ever-changing global world. Many families are forced to do far more with much less. The race to keep up is driven by greater needs and greater expectations. The pressure this pace puts on society and brings to our communities is sometimes daunting.

One positive outcome from these stresses is that we are seeing an increased interest by families to exercise traditional values. We see families returning to their spiritual roots, witnessed by increased numbers in many churches across the country. We see Canadians reaching out to draw strength from their traditional institutions.

The concerns that I have heard from my constituents are shared by a vast majority of Canadians, that there is a belief that we should treat all Canadians equally but not necessarily exactly the same. That is why, when called, I will be voting against Bill C-38.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the House will soon be asked to vote on whether to send Bill C-38, the civil marriage act, to committee for review. The bill was tabled on February 1 and has been debated in the House ever since. Yet the essence of this legislation, the extension of equal access to civil marriage to gays and lesbians while at the same time respecting religious freedom, has been known for close to two years now. It was in July 2003 that the government referred its draft bill to the Supreme Court of Canada.

During this period, all aspects of the bill were discussed in depth, in the House, earlier in the standing committee which travelled across Canada and heard from over 300 witnesses, before the courts in eight provinces and territories, before the Supreme Court of Canada in its reference hearing, and in the media and other public forums. From a democratic perspective, I am pleased that there has been so much involvement by so many on this important issue.

The bill is a short one with two main substantive provisions, one extending access to civil marriage to same sex couples and the second acknowledging and respecting religious freedom. Yet, with all this discussion and debate, the opposition's main arguments against the bill continue to be anchored in three assertions which are simply mistaken. First, that it is open to the House to re-enact the opposite sex definition of civil marriage without using the notwithstanding clause. Second, that Parliament can ensure that the equality guarantee can be secured through some form of civil union. Third, that the bill threatens religious freedom.

These assertions are simply not grounded in fact or law. I fully acknowledge that the legal and constitutional principles involved here are complex. I understand that there are strong feelings on all sides of this debate and they deserve to be respected. I appreciate that many Canadians are still struggling with the idea of change to the central institution of marriage.

It is essential that parliamentarians and Canadians clearly understand, from a legislative and judicial point of view, what choices are and are not open to us as well as the costs and implications of those choices for our values and for our future. We may not agree at the end of this exercise on what is the best choice to make, but we should at a minimum all agree on what the choices are.

Today, I wish to explain to the House why the compromises suggested by the opposition are not valid options and what real options are available to us.

The opposition has suggested that there is a compromise available here that would mean legislating the traditional opposite sex definition of marriage once again and offering the same rights and privileges of marriage to same sex couples but through civil unions and not civil marriage. We heard it once again this morning.

This compromise is not well-founded. It is based on two assumptions that are wrong in law. First, the compromise offered by the opposition to re-enact the opposite sex requirement for marriage is technically possible, but only if Parliament is willing and able to use the notwithstanding clause. Second, even then it is unlikely that the law it proposes would survive a court challenge as Parliament simply does not have the authority to bring about the compromise that the opposition proposes.

Let me begin with why the notwithstanding clause would have to be used to re-enact an opposite sex definition of civil marriage.

The opposition asserts that somehow it is still open for Parliament to re-enact the traditional definition of marriage, to override the equality provisions of the charter, to override judgments in eight jurisdictions, to override the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, without using the notwithstanding clause. However, this is based on a leap of logic by the opposition that because the Supreme Court did not directly answer the fourth question put to it by the government, Parliament is now free to decide the issue any way it wants.

I should add, parenthetically, that the fourth question was included in the reference as to whether the traditional definition of marriage was compatible with the charter. It was included to allow those who wished to argue that position to do so.

As to the question we put and supported, whether extending civil marriage to gays and lesbians was compatible with the charter, the court answered that same sex marriage was not only consistent with the charter, but flowed from it.

As well, it is incorrect to say that the Supreme Court of Canada did not answer the question asked in its reference without also stating that when the court came to question four, the answer was moot. For the court to have answered it would have been unprecedented because we already had binding decisions in eight jurisdictions. We already had an earlier answer by the Supreme Court to the effect that same sex marriage was compatible with the charter. Thousands of couples had already married and had acquired protected rights and, as the court said, the government had indicated its intention to go ahead with this legislation.

Moreover, what has to be appreciated here is that nothing in the Supreme Court's decision overruled the binding decisions in eight provinces and territories finding that the opposite sex definition of marriage was inconsistent with the fundamental guarantee of equality in the charter.

It is true that the opposition refers to the eight decisions striking down the traditional definition of marriage as being “only lower court decisions”. Somehow it is suggested the notwithstanding clause is invocable only if we have a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which, in this instance, we also have.

This grasp of the issue is not only mistaken, it is contrary to the rule of law. Where a law has been found to be unconstitutional, the only way to legislate is either to remedy the unconstitutionality, which is what we are trying to do with our projet de loi, or to overrule that court decision by invoking the notwithstanding clause. That means that Parliament would be publicly stating that it will pass the law, despite the fact that it is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court of Canada is not the only court in the country that governments are bound to respect under the rule of law. Decisions of courts in eight jurisdictions, holding that restricting civil marriage to opposite sex couples is unconstitutional, are also binding under the rule of law.

The opposition is not free to somehow mislead Canadians or the House that Parliament can ignore these court decisions and re-enact the same law that has already been declared unconstitutional.

I am not the only person who is concerned that members of the House and the public understand what are the valid options open to us. An open letter was signed by 134 law professors, representing every law school in the country, making this point and asking that the political debate be carried out with a full appreciation of the options.

Moreover, the opposition would have us believe that the changes to the definition of civil marriage have come about because of a lack of action on the part of Parliament. The problem with this theory is that Parliament had already legislated the opposite sex definition of marriage. It was this federal legislation, not only the common law, that was considered by the courts in Quebec and not just, as I said, the common law definition of marriage. Yet the parliamentary statute was found unconstitutional by the Quebec Court of Appeal in the same way that other provinces found the common law to be unconstitutional. Therefore, it is simply not true to say that the courts acted without guidance from Parliament.

Opposition members also assert that the 1995 Egan and Nesbit decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, which they claim remains the only commentary on marriage in any Supreme Court decision, is what is relevant here. The point here is that the question of marriage was not even before the court in the Egan decision. That case dealt with whether the Old Age Security Act was unconstitutional in not including common law, same sex partners. Only the recent marriage reference decision of the Supreme Court of Canada talks about marriage in Canadian law.

It is simply not true that the courts ruled on common law and not on federal legislation. Nor is it true that the government did not strenuously defend the traditional, opposite sex requirement for marriage before the lower courts. However, once the courts declared the opposite sex requirement to be unconstitutional, it was a matter of fidelity to the rule of law and as Attorney General, we were obliged to respect those decisions, as the House is obliged to do.

With regard to the matter of civil union, the opposition neglects to mention that both the British Columbia and Ontario Courts of Appeal have already looked at the possibility of a civil union alternative and said that it would be less than equal and so, unconstitutional. Therefore, even if Parliament adopted this approach, we could not guarantee equality for same sex couples because we simply do not have the constitutional jurisdiction in that regard.

As the opposition acknowledges, civil unions are within provincial and territorial jurisdiction. Leaving it to the provinces and territories to try to solve this question would inevitably result in a patchwork of 13 different civil union schemes that would not guarantee equality.

Let me turn finally to the issue of religious freedom. The opposition would have us believe that Bill C-38 somehow imperils the exercise of religious freedom. The point is that Bill C-38 is organized not only around the principle of equality, but around the protection of religious freedom as well. It is extensively referred to, both in the preamble and in the substantive provisions of the legislation.

Freedom of religion is portrayed also as a weaker sister to equality and it is asserted that wherever courts are tribunals are faced with a clash between equality rights and religious rights, equality rights will always trump religious freedom. Such an assertion ignores both the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada reference and many other charter decisions. The Supreme Court has consistently indicated that freedom of religious must be fully respected.

If additional specific protections are desired in terms of civic marriage officials, commercial provision of services or rentals of church halls, they would have to be added to provincial and territorial laws. I raised this issue recently with my provincial and territorial colleagues. Ontario has already responded, recently passing a new bill extending further protections for religious freedom. Quebec already has that in its civil code.

In conclusion, Bill C-38 fully respects religious freedom guarantees of the charter, and this government has made a commitment to the importance of protecting those religious freedoms, and as I--

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we look forward to two things: forming government and defending the definition of marriage in the country.

I have the distinct privilege to stand and speak on behalf of my riding. The bill is definitely not a priority for Canadians. We saw that on the Hill just a few weeks ago when 15,000 to 20,000 individuals came to say to Canada and to Parliament that we should be careful in what we do, that changing the definition of marriage is an experiment that has not gone well wherever it has been introduced, only in two other countries in the world, and we should tread very carefully when it comes to this.

People are angry and upset at the bill, and rightfully so. They do not buy what the Prime Minister is claiming with regard to the bill being all about human rights. We all believe that human rights should be protected but this is not about human rights. This is about changing a definition of an institution that has been cherished for many generations in this country. In fact, it predates the state itself.

This could have major consequences, not only for the institution of marriage but for children, for religious freedoms and for society itself.

I will not be supporting the legislation and I will do everything in my power to stop it. I will do that on behalf of the people of Yellowhead and I will do it as aggressively as I possibly can. I believe that most members of our caucus are feeling the same way about this issue.

What is marriage? Marriage is an inclusive union between one man and one woman and it has been recognized as that for thousands of years. It is an institution that predates the modern states and is recognized in most of the world's cultures and religions. Marriage serves as a bond between a man and a woman and between the generations. It provides the ideal environment for raising children. Marriage is the pillar of our society and, like I say, we trample on it at our peril.

Contrary to the Liberal claim, same sex marriage is not a fundamental right. The Supreme Court of Canada did not recognize it as such and gave it back to this Parliament to decide and to deal with. In fact, no nation or international court has recognized same sex marriage as a basic human right. Marriage as a union of a man and a woman has stood the test of time and place and many Canadians are willing to extend benefits and, I should say, are willing to extend benefits to other kinds of domestic partnerships. Most people in the House recognize that as well but they recognize marriage as something distinct. It is a unique bond or covenant between a man and a woman.

The other aspect to this legislation is religious freedoms. I also oppose the bill because the redefinition of marriage threatens religious freedom and conscience. Religious freedom is already under attack in this country and I think that we can expect worse to happen if we pass the legislation.

The government says that religious officials would not be compelled to perform same sex ceremonies. That is very generous of it but this is only one of the many possible impacts on religious freedom flowing from the redefinition of marriage. That is the law of unintended consequences of this legislation. In some of the provinces, marriage commissioners right now are being compelled to affirm same sex marriages or lose their licences.

The bill would not protect these officials because it cannot. The solemnization of marriage is under provincial jurisdiction. It is not under federal jurisdiction. Therefore we should not be saying that we can protect something that we cannot.

It seems like the government's deputy House leader thinks that it is fine for marriage commissioner's to lose their licences. I do not believe that should be the case at all.

What else can we expect? Churches or temples may be forced to rent out their halls for same sex marriage receptions, which is exactly what is happening in British Columbia. A branch of the Knights of Columbus has been taken to the B.C. Human Rights Commission for refusing to rent out its hall for a same sex marriage reception.

The charitable status of religious institutions in which same sex marriages may be performed could be revoked. Religious schools or charities may be forced to hire and retain employees of same sex couples.

Last but not least there is a concern that religious officials may one day be ordered by the courts to sanction same sex marriages and allow them to be performed in our churches, mosques and temples.

The bill includes a declaration claiming that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs. However, this declaration carries no legal weight because the solemnization of marriage, as I have said, falls under provincial jurisdiction.

Freedom of religion and conscience is the lifeblood of an open society. Bill C-38 moves us further away from that standard, posing further harms to religious freedoms in Canada. As I have said, marriage commissioners are already being fired. Charitable status may already be taken away, potentially, and the outlook for religious officials and institutions to maintain their teachings and practice on marriage remains uncertain. For these reasons, too, I oppose the redefinition of marriage and this bill.

Let us move forward and look at what else might happen. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the traditional definition of marriage. In fact, it handed that back to this Parliament, which is the highest court of the country. We should do our due diligence. That is what I hope we are doing here today. Seriously concerned about this, as members of Parliament we must stand up and represent the people of Canada on this important issue.

The Prime Minister and the justice minister have turned their backs on marriage. I can tell members that we will not. A Conservative government would introduce legislation to preserve the traditional definition of marriage and would also extend the same federal benefits enjoyed by married couples to same sex unions. Our approach represents a reasonable compromise that is accepted by the majority of Canadians.

Marriage as the union of a man and a woman is a cherished institution in Canada and around the world. Not all marriages are perfect, of course, but on balance marriage is an institution that richly benefits men, women, children and society. That we would trample it and tamper with it, I would suggest to this Parliament, means that we would be on dangerous grounds and into a very dangerous experiment.

Redefining marriage would have numerous consequences. Some of them are already with us. Others will surely emerge with the passage of time. Among them is likely to be the ongoing erosion of religious freedoms in Canada.

This actually happened not long ago in Australia. Australians had the same sort of debate. The issue was in the courts and then the government was under pressure to act. There was a groundswell of support for traditional marriage in that country, just as we are seeing today. In response, the Government of Australia passed legislation preserving the definition of marriage. This government and this Parliament can and should do the exact same thing.

I urge all members of Parliament to carefully consider what is at stake. I urge my colleagues not to rush headlong into the reinvention of marriage, making our country just the third in the world to do so. I urge the Prime Minister to show true respect to his cabinet ministers and their constituents by not binding them on this bill. I urge Parliament to affirm marriage and to protect freedom of religion in Canada.

It is very important to think of the Prime Minister and some of his words over the last year, when he talked about coming in and reforming this House by giving the people of Canada a stronger voice through parliamentary reform. That is what he talked about. He ran in the last election pledging that he was going to do that when he became the Prime Minister of this country. He has been Prime Minister for a year. It took this Prime Minister six days to break his promise with regard to whipping his backbenchers into a whipped vote. Our past prime minister was notorious for whipping his caucus, but with him it was a month or two before we saw that sort of thing start to happen. It took six days in this case.

Here we are on same sex marriage, one of the most important issues that we have faced as a Parliament and as a nation. We have a Prime Minister who claims to have democratically reformed this House so that the people of Canada truly have a voice in this place, yet he stands in his place over there and whips his cabinet on an issue like this. It is not respectful to his cabinet. It is not respectful to the people of Canada those members represent. It is an abomination to this House on an issue like this.

I would implore him to change his mind and I ask this House to change its mind with regard to allowing this piece of legislation to go through.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the second reading debate on Bill C-38, the same sex marriage bill. To say that this legislation has caused a controversy or generated public interest would be an understatement.

I want to be very clear at the beginning of my remarks and say that I will not be supporting the bill. I support the definition of marriage that has worked in our society for centuries, that being that marriage is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.

I said that the legislation has created a great deal of controversy, which actually surprises me somewhat. If I had been asked 15 years ago when I was in Parliament that this would be the number one social issue facing us at this time, I would have been quite surprised. I would have said to those individuals who would want to change institutions within our society that marriage was definitely off their radar screen.

I remember, when I was the parliamentary secretary to the justice minister, some groups contacted us wanting to know why the federal government was still keeping divorce records. Inasmuch as divorce is a federal matter, the Government of Canada did keep statistics on divorces. The groups felt the government was wasting time and effort.

The implication was very clear. In their own mind marriage was basically irrelevant. Whether one was married, unmarried, living together, or whatever, it was irrelevant, so they wanted to know why we were keeping divorce statistics. I did not share that particular view of marriage and I certainly do not share it today. I thought it was perfectly within the government's right to keep that information. That is why I am somewhat surprised that this is the number one issue for those individuals who want to change institutions within our society.

I support the institution of marriage as it has been comprised for centuries in our society. It is one of the basic institutions of our society and is the foundation upon which we have built our culture.

I noted with interest when a government minister asked why the churches were getting involved in this issue. I was fascinated by that remark. It is a fact that well over 90% of the marriages conducted in this country are conducted under the auspices of churches and other religious institutions. That alone would make one think that they might have a passing interest in something that they almost exclusively handle in Canadian society.

Marriage is not something in which the churches and other religious institutions just became involved over the last couple of months or years. For centuries the Churches have taken an interest in this, have refined this and have made rules and customs on this. I am not overstating the fact that churches have had an interest in marriage for thousands of years. It seems to me that alone would mean they have a vital interest in marriage since we are trying to alter the definition that has worked for them.

When I talk about this subject I want to make it very clear that I am not in the business of trying to deny rights to other individuals. I have no problem with legislation that is designed to ensure people are treated fairly in society and treated with respect.

Members can check the record back in the late eighties when the legislation was introduced to protect individuals from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation. I remember speaking in this Parliament, one of the first speeches I am sure I made, and made the point that within the federal jurisdiction it would be a terrible thing if somebody was, among other things, fired from a job because of his or her sexual orientation. I could never support anything like that and I welcomed this Parliament moving ahead on that.

At the same time, though, I have to say with respect to this issue, that does not mean that we have to start altering the institution of marriage which has worked well and has been a part of our society for so many years. It is not necessary, in my opinion, to change that.

This position was overwhelmingly endorsed by the House of Commons in 1999. It was not just the members of the Conservative Party or the Alliance Party or the Progressive Conservative Party. They were not the ones who were standing up. It was members of the Liberal Party. Hon. members can check it out. In 1999, members of the Liberal Party said that they would defend the traditional definition of marriage, that they would not be introducing legislation that would threaten that and that they endorsed that. There was no suggestion among the members of the Liberal Party that somehow people's fundamental rights were being violated or taken away from them because indeed they were not.

This is just something that the Liberals have come up with in recent years, and it is very disappointing that it is the case. It was something that was supported in the last Parliament and something that people would expect when they went to the polls. If people were to ask if their member supported the traditional definition of marriage, they would see from the record in 1999 that their member did. They were all in favour of it. I am sure this has come as a rude awakening to some voters across this country that this was not something that they particularly believed in or something on which they could not have changed their minds.

I also am disappointed by the position of the federal cabinet. I cannot believe there is unanimity among the approximately 40 cabinet ministers. I know of no other group of 30 members of Parliament in which there is unanimity on this particular subject.

Even the members of the New Democratic Party who are, of course, no defenders of traditional values in this country, but even within that group one member dissented on this.

The members of the federal cabinet do not have the privilege of being a part of a political party that gives them the freedom to do as they believe they should do on a subject like this, which is one of the reasons I am so proud to be a member of this political party, the Conservative Party of Canada, where on an issue like this we are truly given a free vote, which is fair on moral issues and issues that touch people deeply like the marriage issue.

I have been asked on a number of occasions whether we have, as a federal Parliament or the House of Commons, the right to legislate in this area. I say, yes, of course we have. It is very clear that while the solemnization of marriage is within the jurisdiction of the provinces, divorce and marriage are clearly within the federal sphere.

We have not legislated on the marriage issue in the federal sphere because we did not think it was necessary, quite frankly. We have used the common law definition, which has been around for centuries, on the subject of divorce. We have altered the rules and laws with respect to divorce several times over the years but we have gone with the traditional definition. Now that has been challenged in the courts and therefore it is perfectly within our rights to come up with a federally legislated definition of marriage. I believe it will withstand court challenges because the Constitution gives us this right to do that.

The first step in this debate is to defeat the bill. I want people to know they can count on a Conservative government. We will introduce legislation, as we have the right to do, that will protect the traditional definition of marriage.

This has created quite a bit of interest and quite a bit of controversy. Mr. Speaker, you have seen me stand in the House on a number of occasions presenting petitions from the people of Niagara Falls, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Fort Erie, the greater Fort Erie area, including Ridgeway and Stevensville. Hundreds of people took the time to forward these petitions and I have been proud and pleased to present them on their behalf. They want to see that traditional definition of marriage preserved and I am prepared to tell them that when the Conservative Party becomes the government of this country, and that day will be much closer, we will do what the Liberals said they would do in 1999.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is so much that could be said on this subject, a lot of studies that could be quoted, a lot of profound statements from philosophers and theologists, and other realms as well.

I will quickly recap the last time I spoke with respect to an amendment on Bill C-38, the same sex marriage bill. I talked about how we need to support traditional heterosexual marriage, first of all, for the sake of the children. They are the most vulnerable members of society. If there are competing rights, I remember Margaret Summerville, the ethicist, saying that one ought always to defer to the weaker and more vulnerable. Instead of talking about adult dependent relationships, as tends to be the case in respect of those advocating for same sex marriages, we tend to forget about the children, the more vulnerable members of society, and the progeny or the offspring that come out of a biological heterosexual union.

I made referred to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Article 7 says that it is the right of children to know and be cared for by their parents, obviously a reference to the biological progenitors of the children who have come into this world.

In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the children shall be a primary consideration. That is in article 3 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Somehow that gets overlooked and too easily swept to the side when in fact it is the children that this debate should be about in a major and significant way. It should be in their interests that we defer.

I was not only for the sake of the children but also for the sake of free speech. I was beginning to make the point of the imposition there would be in schools and places of learning and so on, if there were to be the legalization of same sex marriage.

With the legalization of homosexual marriage, it is my deep concern that every public school in the nation will be required to teach homosexual coupling as the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. We have already seen examples of such pressures that schools face in your end of the country, Mr. Speaker, in Surrey, B.C., where a school board in fact had to fight through the courts to retain its own curriculum in respect of this particular issue.

I am concerned, as buttressed by this very case in point in Surrey, that even in conservative regions in the country textbooks will have to depict man-man and woman-woman relationships and stories written for children as young as elementary school or even kindergarten, and may have to give equal space and emphasis to homosexual unions. How can a child fresh out of toddlerhood comprehend the meaning of adult sexuality? The answer is that they cannot, nor should they have to, and nor should we be forcing that on them at that very young and tender age.

Among those changes will be “diverse” textbooks that will include same sex couples as role models, even for little children. To refuse such content will be considered “discrimination” and those dissenting school boards will be taken to court.

Furthermore, the provincial teachers' federations will sue on behalf of any teachers involved. Increasingly, activist liberal courts will model themselves after the Supreme Court judges, and those judges at the lower court levels are pretty likely to rule in favour of such plaintiffs.

It is not only for the sake of children and free speech but also for the sake of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. Does anyone honestly expect Canadians to believe that the Liberal government will protect their rights in respect of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience when only a few years ago the Deputy Prime Minister as well as the Prime Minister assured Canadians that they had no intention of changing the definition of marriage, and in fact promised to take all necessary steps to protect marriage?

The Liberals have already blatantly broken the promise that they made some time ago, also they reiterated a couple of times here. They have broken those promises of protecting freedom of conscience. We have seen what has happened to marriage commissioners across the country. In my province of Saskatchewan, in Manitoba and in various other provinces those individuals have been sidelined. They have been imposed upon. There is an attempt to violate their conscience.

I ask members gathered here today why should Canadians believe that the Liberals will protect those freedoms of religion and conscience when they have broken promises in respect to that already?

Dr. Janet Epp Buckingham says:

We have been given bland assertions by the Justice Minister that religious freedom will be protected with the redefinition of marriage but there is absolutely no evidence of this...Already we have seen marriage commissioners forced to resign in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba over this issue. Mayors have been forced to resign in Newfoundland. A human rights complaint has been heard against the Knights of Columbus for refusing to rent their hall for a lesbian wedding reception....This is just the beginning of the types of religious freedom violations we anticipate from the redefinition of the institution of marriage.

She goes on to say:

With more than 75 percent of marriages in Canada solemnized by clergy, it is clearly a deeply religious institution. It is naïve and impossible to say that you can change civil marriage without it having an impact on religious marriage and religious institutions.

She says, “The Prime Minister has said that this is an issue of fundamental rights. He has said that in redefining marriage, he is defending the Charter”. However, no international body has actually said that it is a matter of human rights. We look at the various conventions that we have internationally but none on planet earth have said that is an issue of human rights that must be foist on the Canadian public. “If that is the case, there is no room for those of us who have a different vision of family life in Canada. We are already being pushed to the margins of Canadian life”, she says, and “we are already being made to feel unwelcome”.

She continues:

This is not tolerance and it is not upholding the Charter.

The assurances the Justice Minister is making are empty promises. The Supreme Court of Canada said that any protection for religious freedom in this legislation will be struck down by the courts because the federal government does not have the legislative power to make such a law.

Under the Constitution Act, 1867, only the provincial governments can legislate to protect religious freedom relating to the solemnization of marriage. But we have not seen any action by provincial governments to protect religious freedom.

Religious freedom is a political football that is being tossed back and forth between the federal and provincial governments.

Churches and religious institutions are being set up for endless court cases. It will be death by a thousand cuts.

We call on the Justice Minister to tell Canadians how he will ensure that religious freedom is protected before he proceeds to force the redefinition of marriage on all Canadians.

Not only for the sake of the children, not only for the sake of freedom of religion and conscience in our country and our society, but also for the sake of free speech and for the sake of integrity and honesty in public figures.

We have the Deputy Prime Minister the member of Parliament for Edmonton Centre, making statements that are now a total about face with plain statements she made before. If we allow public figures to get away with that, then we have sunk to new lows in what we allow public figures.

The Deputy Prime Minister once said, “the definition of marriage is already clear in law as the union of two persons of the opposite sex. It “is a unique institution. It is one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”. She said, “Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages”. She said, “This definition of marriage, which has been consistently applied in Canada and which was reaffirmed last year to a resolution...it has served us well and will not change.

Those blatant untruths and contradictions are another reason why we need to turn this back. For the sake of integrity and honesty in public figures, if politicians can get away with such blatant untruths and contradictions, we have sunk to new lows in what we allow public figures. For these very good reasons, I would appeal to colleagues across the way and to the public why do we need to support traditional marriage.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I too will be voting against Bill C-38. The Prime Minister has one thing right. At stake is the kind of nation we are today and the nation we want to be.

There is no other issue that has come across my desk in the time I have been a member of Parliament that has generated as great a degree of correspondence by telephone, fax, email, and letter writing as the issue of marriage. It seems that, regardless of a person's position or their religion or their faith, they have come together in my constituency of Souris--Moose Mountain as one, asking me to oppose this particular bill. We find people opposed to it across Canada.

The legislation invites Canadians to go down a road they do not wish to go and to accept as a nation a fundamental change to the traditional definition of marriage, a change the majority of Canadians do not wish to accept. This does not bode well for our country. I have received numerous letters and I will read from a few of them to capsulize the feeling of my constituents. One from my home city of Estevan states:

Marriage between one man and one woman is a natural institution as it predates all recorded, formally structured, social, legal, political and religious systems. In so far as it is a social institution, marriage is concerned with the common good, not individual rights.

The government tried to define this thing as a rights issue. It is not a rights issue; it is a public policy issue. It is an issue of a definition and that issue should be settled, and has been settled in history by common law. It is time now for Parliament to restate its position by way of legislation that is appropriate. The letter further states:

The State must strengthen and protect marriage between a man and a woman because it assures the survival of society by creating the next generation.

I ask the Government of Canada to implement legislation that will recognize, protect and reaffirm the definition of marriage as a voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I also ask that should the Government of Canada want to address the concerns of other adult interdependent relationships, it do so in a way that respects human dignity, but does not redefine and thus void the vital, irreplaceable, natural, and social institution of marriage.

I stand against our Government's efforts to destroy the definition of traditional marriage.

That has been espoused by many people. Another letter from Whitewood, in the north part of my constituency, reads:

I would like to express my views that marriage should be protected and remain as “the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”.

Marriage is of critical importance to our society. It is perhaps the most important societal institution we have because it provides for the upbringing of children and is a foundation for strong, healthy families. Marriage ensures children have the best chance to have both a mom and a dad in their lives. Marriage also ensures the continuation of society and provides family stability for future generations. Marriage between a man and a woman is a unique relationship that simply cannot be replicated by any other relationship.

This issue is too big and too important for the justice minister, the Prime Minister and his enforcers to decide. They have not even given members of the government the free opportunity to vote on this issue but have actually asked them to support the bill, whether their personal convictions or constituents would like to see it otherwise, in a very close vote in the House.

Ultimately, it will be decided by the people of this country, and perhaps sooner than later, if we have an election. The people will speak loud and clear when the time comes for them to decide who will be representing their interests in this House.

As I said before, the Liberal government and the Liberal Party of Canada would like to describe this as a rights or equality or dignity issue. It is not. If anyone is confused on this, it is the Prime Minister. Focus on the Family has stated that the fundamental question is whether marriage has a continuing role in our modern society and, if so, should this be reflected in our laws?

It really is a public policy issue that belongs to all Canadians. The debate and the nature of marriage belongs to the realm of public policy and not basic human rights.

Many countries and organizations have held this view and it is not something that is unique to Canada. In fact, on June 8, 1999 it was the opinion of the House that it was necessary, in light of public debate around the court decisions, to state that marriage was and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament should take all steps necessary within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to preserve the definition of marriage.

What has changed since that time? There have been a number of court decisions, but they have been made in a vacuum. They have been made based on common law and not statute law. They have been made because the House has not defined marriage, when the Constitution states that the House has the ability to define the capacity to marry. The Prime Minister has chosen not to address that issue in advance of court decisions and has decided not to appeal court decisions when they were made based on the common law definition of marriage. He now tries to use that as a justification for inaction in the preservation of the traditional definition of marriage.

Where was the Prime Minister when those courts were struggling to make a decision on their own based on common law and without any guidance from the House or from a legislated body?

It is not an issue of whether gays and lesbians can vote or serve in the military. It is not an issue of whether they are discriminated against or not because discrimination has no place in our society, in our party or in the House. However, to compare that to the issue of whether the traditional definition of marriage should be maintained is something all together different.

The core issue here is the redefinition of a known term, so as to include someone who would by the very nature of the fundamental meaning of the term not be included. By reformulating, redefining or diluting the definition of marriage, it has made it to mean something other than what it is and was. Marriage is essentially the union of two people, a man and a woman, who consummate the relationship by sexual relations with the potential to procreate. Anyone fitting that description is entitled to marry. Anyone who does not, is not. We cannot simply change the definition to suit the whims or needs of anyone, whether it is catering to current political thought or what the current fad is.

Marriage is what it is always said to be and there are legal precedents for that. Justice La Forest in Egan v. Canada, a 1995 Supreme Court of Canada case, stated in reference to the traditional definition of marriage:

But its ultimate raison d'être transcends all of these and is firmly anchored in the biological and social realities that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to procreate, that most children are the product of these relationships, and that they are generally cared for and nurtured by those who live in that relationship. In this sense, marriage is by nature heterosexual.

Another letter from a legal counsel in my constituency stated:

I urge you to oppose the redefinition of marriage to include same sex couples. Marriage has been and should remain, by its very nature, a procreative relationship. That is not to say that all marriages procreate, but that its primary purpose is procreation. Same sex couples may have their relationship legally recognized in some other manner without redefining marriage.

Again, if we start redefining terms, we can make it anything we want it to be. The basis of the traditional definition of marriage was the Hyde v. Hyde case and a quote from that case that is not often quoted states:

--marriage has been well said to be something more than a contract, either religious or civil to be an institution.

The Prime Minister has attempted to define civil marriage as something else, but when we change the meaning of civil marriage, we affect all of marriage. I think we must and should take a stand against it.

The leader of my party said in the House:

There are fundamental questions here. Will this society be one which respects the longstanding basic social institution of marriage or will it be one that believes even our most basic structures can be reinvented overnight for the sake of political correctness?...there are some things more fundamental than the state and its latest fad.

That is the definition of marriage. He went on to say:

--marriage and family are not the creature of the state, but pre-exist the state.

We must as a state uphold and defend the traditional definition of marriage. It truly is a significant time in the history of our country and indeed it is a time where at stake is the kind of nation we are today and the kind of nation we want to be.

As the Prime Minister has stated, “the gaze of history is upon us”. Whose vision of the future of our nation is the correct one? There is no doubt about that, the people of Canada will see to it. The Prime Minister has it wrong. The people of Canada will set the record straight at the ballot box.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak again on behalf of my constituents of Langley on the government's plan to change the historic definition of marriage. Thousands of Langley residents responded to my request for input and 96% said they want me to vote to uphold the traditional definition of marriage being between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. That is exactly what I will do.

The Prime Minister's plan to change the definition of marriage is an attack on Canadian society and on religious freedoms. His comments on marriage have been dishonest and need to be challenged.

The people of Langley have plenty to say about marriage. I have received thousands of letters, e-mails and cards. Here is a sample:

I want to thank you for your vote in favour of the amendment to Bill C-38. Your support for marriage between a man and a woman is very crucial at this point in Canadian history and I encourage you to remain steadfast in your efforts. As Bill C-38 works its way through the parliamentary process, I ask you to work to persuade your parliamentary colleagues who may still be undecided about traditional marriage. As you know, every vote will count when this bill gets to third reading. Thank you again for standing on behalf of marriage. In the next election, I will be certain to support a candidate who shares my convictions about marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Parliament voted on the definition of marriage three times in the past six years. In 1999 the Prime Minister and many of the current cabinet members supported a motion that defined marriage as a union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. It passed 216 to 55.

Two years ago the Prime Minister promised Canadian religious leaders that he would never permit the definition of marriage to be changed. Then in 2003 the Prime Minister and many of those same cabinet ministers voted against the traditional definition, causing it to be defeated 137 to 132.

During the last election many of his cabinet ministers were again promising Canadians that they would defend traditional marriage. Promises made, promises broken.

On April 12 the House voted on the Conservative motion to “protect the traditional definition of marriage, to provide the same rights and benefits to same sex unions, and to protect the religious rights of all Canadians”. That motion represented the democratic wishes of the majority of Canadians. Tragically, the Prime Minister ignored those rights of the majority and whipped the vote of his cabinet. The democratic rights of Canadians were defeated in a vote of 164 to 132. That was a sad day for democracy.

The Prime Minister and his Liberal government have been dishonest and have been misleading Canadians in three major ways. They have been saying that redefining marriage is a human rights issue. That is wrong. They have said that redefining marriage is required in the charter. That is wrong. They have said that the civil marriage act will protect religious freedoms. That is wrong.

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

The Prime Minister knows that the decisions of the United Nations and international courts do not support what he has been saying. Why is the Prime Minister being dishonest and whipping his cabinet? Because without manipulated support the bill would fail.

The second way that the government is misleading Canadians is with regard to equality rights. The Liberal government said only equal access to civil marriage would fully comply with the charter. It has said that any institution other than marriage is less than equal. That is utter nonsense. Same sex unions have equal rights.

The Liberals have also misled Canadians by saying that the Conservative Party is against equality rights. To the contrary, and let me be absolutely clear, the Conservative Party supports equal rights and benefits for same sex couples. We are the only party that believes in the charter rights of all Canadians, not just a select few. Gay and lesbian couples have equal rights to central social institutions, such as legal unions, and have equal rights.

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

Equal rights do not equate to same rights. Canada has many examples and instances where Canadians have fought for equal rights, but not the same rights. For example, the child tax benefit cheques normally go to the mother, not the father. Quebec says it is equal, but not the same, therefore suggesting its distinct society clause. Men and women are equal, but not the same.

The Supreme Court has not ruled that marriage must be redefined. The Supreme Court has not ruled that the definition of marriage must be changed to allow civil unions. The Supreme Court has said that Parliament has the authority to redefine marriage if it so wishes.

The majority of Canadians do not want the definition of marriage changed. The power hungry, undemocratic Liberal government is bent on changing marriage, ignoring the rights of the majority of Canadians. The government could not care less about the consequences of its agenda. It is misleading Canadians and forging ahead with its social experiment, changing the Canada that we all know and love.

The Liberals want to change the historical religious definition of marriage which predates our government. They also plan to legalize marijuana, legalize prostitution and take away the charitable status of faith based organizations. This is not the Canada that Canadians want. The Prime Minister's values are not Canadian values.

The third way that Canadians are being misled is the protection of religious rights. Bill C-38 does not protect religious rights. The third clause is merely a recognition and has no teeth whatsoever. Saying that the civil marriage act will protect religious freedoms is dishonest and misleading. The solemnization of marriage is in the provincial jurisdiction. This is very clear and the Liberals had their hands slapped by the Supreme Court.

If the Prime Minister really wanted to protect religious freedoms, he would have drafted amendments to the Income Tax Act on charitable status. Before tabling Bill C-38 he had the time to make those changes, but he chose not to.

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

Canada's judicial courts and human rights tribunals have a near perfect record of finding against religious rights. We have seen this in Oshawa, where a Catholic school was charged with discrimination for not allowing Marc Hall's boyfriend into the graduation dance. In greater Vancouver, the Knights of Columbus were charged for cancelling a booking for a same sex wedding reception. More than 50 marriage commissioners have resigned or been fired because of their religious freedoms and rights.

This is just the start. One of Pope John Paul II's appointed bishops, Bishop Fred Henry, formerly of Windsor, who celebrated the mass at the funeral of the hon. Paul Martin Sr., and is now the Bishop of Calgary, is being brought before the Human Rights Commission for his defence of marriage. Who is next? Teachers in faith based schools will have to resign or be forced to lecture against their religious beliefs.

Members of the Liberal government are describing religious institutions as being discriminatory and have argued already that their charitable tax status should be revoked. This would cause the closure of churches, synagogues, mosques and any faith based organization that disagrees with the Liberal government.

The attacks have just started. Marriage is a historic religious union that predates government. From time immemorial it has been a union of one man and one woman. It is more than just two people uniting. It is God being part of it in joining the union according to His will.

The government should not change the traditional definition of marriage. I will be voting against the government's Bill C-38.

[Gary Schellenberger, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-38. I appreciate that so many of my constituents took the time to share their concerns with me. The issue of same sex marriage is an emotionally charged one with people on each side of the issue expressing their sincere, deeply held beliefs.

After carefully considering the views of the majority of my constituents who have contacted me on this issue, as well as my personal beliefs, I am in support of the traditional definition of marriage. I voted in favour of the motion that reaffirmed that definition in September 2003 and I will continue to take this position in the future.

I, like many on this side of the House, believe in the traditional common definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Not everyone shares this view. Because there will be a true free vote in my party on this issue, it makes me proud to be a Conservative. I very much respect my colleagues and, indeed, fellow Canadians who do not share my views on the issue and think respectful debate on the matter is genuinely good for democracy.

This House, including the current Prime Minister, voted to uphold the definition of marriage in 1999 and in the amendments to Bill C-23 in 2000. In fact, the Deputy Prime Minister, who was then justice minister, led the defence of marriage from the government side.

The following is what the Deputy Prime Minister said in 1999 in support of her defence of the traditional definition of marriage. She said:

We on this side agree that the institution of marriage is a central and important institution in the lives of many Canadians. It plays an important part in all societies worldwide, second only to the fundamental importance of family to all of us.

“—unions of persons of the same sex are not 'marriages', because of the definition of marriage”.

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

Marriage has fundamental value and importance to Canadians and we do not believe on this side of the House that importance and value is in any way threatened or undermined by others seeking to have their long term relationships recognized. I support the motion for maintaining the clear legal definition of marriage in Canada as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

This was the Deputy Prime Minister speaking less than six years ago. What she said was true then and it is true now.

The Supreme Court itself has still not addressed this issue despite a clear request to do so from the government. It is important to note that the Supreme Court of Canada ruling on December 9, 2004 did not declare the traditional definition of marriage as unconstitutional. The court made it clear that it believes the issue is for Parliament to deal with.

What is unconstitutional is any kind of discrimination against members of any minority group. We must work hard to ensure that a same sex couple entering into a loving, committed relationship via a civil or domestic union is afforded the same protections, benefits and status as married couples receive under the law.

All law-abiding Canadians must be able to conduct their lives and contribute to society without fear of discrimination. I believe that the proposed amendment suggested by the Leader of the Opposition would have provided the best ground to find a constructive compromise that the vast majority of Canadians would have felt comfortable with.

I want to congratulate the leader of the Conservative Party for advocating a very wise and reasonable position. The majority of Canadians are looking for a middle ground compromise that would recognize the valid concerns of the partisans on either side.

On the one hand, some Canadians seek to preserve the traditional definition of the term marriage, which predates the creation of the nation state. On the other hand, there is a belief that by broadening the definition of marriage to include same sex couples, Canadian society will take an important step in the direction of tolerance and respect of homosexuals. I believe we can achieve this kind of tolerant, respectful society without changing the definition of marriage.

I am entirely supportive of state recognition of same gender civil or domestic unions, bringing with them all the same protections and benefits as marriage, but for the same sex couples. A same gender couple in Canada wishing to enter into a loving lifelong committed relationship must be afforded the same protection and status as married couples under the law.

We can be tolerant and respectful to all parties in this matter without changing the definition of marriage. This is the kind of compromise that should be reached.

The rights of all minority groups must be strongly protected, and it would be wrong to marginalize homosexuals. Any type of discrimination directed against the homosexual community is completely unacceptable. I want to be clear about that.

For me, the issue is not an issue of human rights. It is about freedom of religion. Just as we must protect minority rights, we must also protect religious freedom in Canada. Finding a fair balance can be difficult.

The Conservative compromise option may not satisfy everyone. It would not satisfy those who believe that equality rights for same gender couples are an absolute, which cannot be compromised by accepting anything less than full marriage, or that the heterosexual status of marriage is an absolute, which cannot be compromised by recognizing equal rights for other kinds of unions. But it would satisfy the vast majority of Canadians who are seeking common ground on the issue.

There is no need to go to extremes in this debate. Accepting a compromise that respects the will of the majority and upholds rights is exactly what the amendments proposed by the Conservative Party represent.

Conservatives would propose that other forms of union, whether heterosexual or homosexual, whether called common law status, civil unions or registered domestic partnerships, should be entitled to the same legal rights, privileges and benefits of traditional marriage.

Conservatives believe that same gender couples should have the right to be treated the same as married couples when it comes to matters like pensions, tax obligations or immigration matters. Any federal law that would treat same gender couples any differently from married couples is completely unacceptable.

This is not a reactionary solution that would infringe on any Canadian's human rights as the government alleges. The Conservative position represents a moderate compromise position that would keep Canada in the company of some of the most tolerant and progressive countries in the western world, a Canada we can be proud of.

The overwhelming majority of my constituents believe that marriage is a basically heterosexual institution, but that same gender couples also have rights to equality within society that should be recognized and protected.

Michael Whitehouse wrote me from Stratford, “I am not opposed to people choosing their own way of life, nor am I opposed to seeing civil unions being given benefits. I am opposed to changing the definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman”.

Marguerite and Oscar Schill of Alma said, “We believe that the definition of union would be an appropriate title for same sex couples to own and would give them honour and dignity and their own definition of being united in love. This would not interfere with those of us who own the definition of marriage”.

Mrs. Inez Haid of Listowel passed this along, “I have no bias when it comes to homosexuals. I respect them. Since they have had the courage to declare their lifestyle, why is there not a vocabulary and a ceremony which would apply to their situation? Give them the same rights and obligations as the traditional married couples but don't call it 'marriage' or a 'wedding ceremony'”.

Winnifred and Norman Dow from Mitchell added, “We are not against some kind of union for such couples but feel the traditional definition as the sacred union of a man and a woman must be respected and maintained”.

One of the problems throughout this debate has been the media's habit of interchanging the terms “same sex marriage” and “same sex union”. The media often starts out using the term “marriage” and then switches back to “union”. Let us be clear here. I am in favour of defending the traditional definition of marriage, and in favour of supporting same gender unions. People should at all times be honest and transparent. Trying to confuse voters is not the answer.

If the government honestly put forward legislation that would preserve marriage while recognizing equal rights of same gender couples through civil unions or other means, then this is the option that most Canadians would choose. This compromise is consistent with Canadian traditions, and it is the option that only the Conservative Party is prepared to offer.

I thank all of those who wrote and e-mailed me on this issue.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased again to speak to Bill C-38. I had an opportunity to speak on the amendment which, unfortunately, was defeated. I think the vote on that particular amendment, which was that the bill not pass a second time, showed that this House is divided. Indeed, Canadians are divided on this question.

There have been some very eloquent speeches about the issue of granting marriage. I know in my own speech I spent a fair bit of time talking about the charter and how important the charter was, and reviewing cases up to the Ontario Halpern decision in which something had changed.

Up until that time the courts had ruled that section 15 of the equality provisions of the charter were in fact being infringed, and under a section 1 analysis, which permits infringements of some of the charter provisions, it dealt with it on the basis of whether it was demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. It was not until the Halpern decision that the courts started to focus in on marriage as an institution. Unfortunately, the panel of three looked at marriage in a very mechanical way.

The court said that marriage as an institution was a declining institution. It pointed out that marriage breakdown or divorce was very prevalent and that obviously society at large was not very much interested in the institution of marriage.

The court also went on to look at the number of people who are seeking common law relationships rather than married relationships. That again is a precise indication that marriage as an institution is a declining institution. Those numbers are continuing to rise. Indeed, Statistics Canada has projected that the number of common law relationships on the current trend line will in fact exceed married relationships within about 10 years.

As an institution marriage has come under attack. I know that many members are quite concerned about the social tendencies. The court went even further. The argument about children in marriage has been a matter which has been debated in this place substantively. The court basically said that there are situations where people can rely on reproductive technologies for instance to have children. There can be artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization and adoption. In fact, a same sex couple can indeed have a child from a previous heterosexual relationship. The existence of children within a same sex couple is not necessarily unusual.

The court literally trashed the institution of marriage as having relevance. The court basically said, under the section 1 analysis of the infringement, that it was no longer a reasonably justified infringement on the equality provisions and that the definition of marriage was indeed contrary to the charter.

Here is where we are now. There is the Ontario court decision and then there were these copycat decisions in other provincial jurisdictions. Here we are in Parliament and I have heard petitions day after day reflecting what Canadians wanted to hear from parliamentarians. It was that the definition of marriage is in fact the responsibility of the Parliament of Canada. Parliament is still the highest court in the land, even above the Supreme Court of Canada. We now have this instrument in Bill C-38.

I find Bill C-38 a very peculiar bill. It is a bill which includes a variety of whereases. As well all know, the courts have indicated that whereases have absolutely no basis in terms of law.

There also is a clause in there which makes some peculiar reference to religious freedoms being protected. If we took everything away and left that one clause in, it absolutely has no result or consequences. The responsibilities vis-à-vis solemnization of marriage are, according to the Supreme Court decision ultra vires, a responsibility of the provinces not of the federal government. To have a statement recognizing that the solemnization of marriage is going to be taken care of is not within the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada. In fact, clause 3 has absolutely no relevance whatsoever in the legislation.

Ultimately, if we take out all the whereases and we take out clause 3, which has absolutely nothing to do with anything, we are left with one line and it says that marriage is the union of two persons. Bill C-38 is all about that. If we take the definition of marriage and we reduce it down to the union of two persons, it has no distinctiveness whatsoever. It has absolutely no defining characteristics. The debate has been about this. What are the defining characteristics?

We know what it is throughout history. We know that marriage pre-existed even religions. It is an institution which historically has been viewed as an institution which fosters an environment for the fundamental responsibility of all species, and that is to survive, to procreate. Marriage is that institution which has played this role. It has given people hope. It is why young people now are flocking back to marriage, and the numbers are changing. They see this as a stable institution.

We have had so many debates in this place about problems of domestic violence, poverty and problems in other social areas. The conclusion in all of those debates and all the research have been that the basic unit of society, the family, mothers and fathers, the children with the biological mother and father is the safest place for children and for women. It is the most nurturing environment to ensure that healthy, well-adjusted children are raised in our society. This is a good thing.

When we go through this debate, how often have members who want to defend the traditional definition of marriage been characterized as being homophobic? I believe we have to remind people that one can be for something without being against something else.

There are many people here who have absolutely no problem with homosexual couples having relationships and considering other forms of it. However, to say that it has no impact, that it will not change anything, from my standpoint, the member for Mississauga South, the bill is an affront to me. It is an affront to my religious beliefs. It is an affront to the holy books of virtually every mainstream religion, of which I know, dealing with the institution of marriage. It is something that is so sacred to so many people across Canada.

With such a divisive issue, why, when we have so many people across the country who are upset about this, should we have a bill that will not be sensitive to those needs? We did not look for an opportunity to have some sort of compromise. The bill did not look at civil unions. Many people feel that is a reasonable compromise.

However, marriage is an institution which has a history. It has a tradition. It has a purpose. It is known. It is respected. What we are going to do now is take that tradition, that institution, and we are going to reduce it down to something as simple as a union of two people. How bizarre, how unfortunate and how sad for Canada.

This is not a good bill. It is a bad bill and it should be defeated.

I know most of the members in this place. I have a great deal of respect for this place and a great deal of respect for the members who have put themselves forward in public office to do the best job they can.

I do not know how all this will work out, but I want Canadians to know that all the people in this place who have fought so very hard to defend the traditional definition of marriage have done so in favour of the traditional definition of marriage and not against some other lifestyle choices. There is a high degree of respect and integrity in this place and I am very proud to be here.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary North Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my comments today commence with the metaphor relied upon by Pope John Paul II in 1988 in his encyclical letter which said:

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth--

The bill involves the balancing of two of the fundamental personal freedoms which are protected under the charter: freedom of religion on the one hand and individual equality rights on the other. The legislation therefore, by definition, takes us into the realm of both faith and reason.

I speak today on behalf of the people of Calgary Centre-North, and in so doing I point out that this issue is one on which there is a wide divergence of opinion because of the unique geography and demography of my riding.

I have learned though extensive consultation with the constituents of Calgary Centre-North that there is a diversity of opinion on this question. I will attempt today to reflect in my comments what I have heard. The vast majority of my constituents do not wish to see this as an issue which divides Canadians.

I would also like to recognize in the House the courage of our leader, the hon. member for Calgary Southwest, who had the strength and integrity to allow Conservative MPs vote freely on this motion. In fact, at the last Conservative Party policy convention, members adopted a policy authorizing a free vote on moral issues such as this.

The Liberal Party and its leader have neither the courage nor the faith in their own MPs and parliamentarians to do likewise.

Let me begin with the province of faith, for I am a Christian and there are strong communities of faith in my riding, both Christian and otherwise. Even among Christians there are strong disagreements on this matter. I emphasize that freedom of religion is central to who we are as a nation.

Subsection 2(a) of our charter provides that freedom of conscience and religion is a fundamental right of every Canadian. Freedom of religion lies at the heart of our free and democratic society.

This freedom was guaranteed under the British North America Act, even before this country was founded. In 1774, shortly after the British conquered North America, the British House of Commons adopted the Quebec Act, which ensured freedom of religion.

The Canadian Bill of Rights of 1960 provided protection for freedom of religion and throughout our history, whether it be beneath the shelter of the charter, the bill of rights, or the freedom of worship legislation of which I speak, we have stood as Canadians in defence of freedom of religion. In my own riding strong Christian congregations, such as the Centre Street Church, flourish in the shelter of freedom of religion.

Bill C-38 is limited to civil marriage. It has no bearing upon religious marriage or its solemnization. Clause 3 of the bill provides:

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

In the marriage reference decision of 2004 the Supreme Court of Canada concluded in clear language that any attempt to compel religious officials to perform same sex marriage almost certainly runs afoul of the charter and would violate the charter. The court also stated that the same holds true for any attempt to compel the use of sacred places for same sex marriage.

In my opinion, this observation by the Supreme Court sufficiently clarifies the distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage under federal legislation.

However, provincial legislation must still be amended; this is no small task. Legally, the provinces are responsible for issuing marriage licences to couples, be they heterosexual or homosexual.

I am somewhat surprised by the absence of attention to the provincial ramifications of this federal bill. In the marriage reference even the Supreme Court pointed out that the provinces will have to pass legislation relating to the solemnization of marriage so as to protect the rights of religious officials while providing for the solemnization of same sex marriage.

In my view provincial legislation needs to be adopted in each province to address the following issues: first, the right of religious officials to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies with which they disagree; second, the right of religious groups to refuse to make real property which they own or control available for the performance of marriage ceremonies or celebrations with which they disagree; third, the right of public officials to decline to perform marriage ceremonies with which they disagree; and fourth, the right of religious groups to maintain their charitable status irrespective of the beliefs which they hold in respect of marriage.

I am of the view however that the proposed bill does not violate freedom of religion or to the opposite sex requirement which many, although not all, religious groups believe is a precondition to religious marriage.

I return then to reason, accepting that it can never be entirely divorced from faith. Clause 2 of the bill provides that:

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

Let me be clear. I have been married to the same woman for 21 years, reflecting my own personal definition of a marriage. It is not however the personal definition of many of our fellow citizens who are homosexual and who have sought the protection of the charter to obtain civil marriage licences from the government. In a constitutional democracy, such as Canada, what should we do about such a conflict?

This begs the fundamental question: what right do we have, as a society, to deny homosexual Canadians something the rest of us are entitled to, namely a civil marriage licence?

As hard as it is to admit, the answer is quite clear, in my opinion. We have no such moral authority because relationships between individuals, of any gender, do not concern the government as long as these individuals are not harming anyone.

I am a Conservative and this is the philosophy that guides me in public life. I have previously referred to John Stuart Mill who commented that “over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign”.

The recognition of same sex marriage does not discriminate against nor harm opposite sex married couples. Recognition of the equality rights of one group does not violate the rights of another.

Many of my constituents are concerned about the risk of societal harm and I understand the fervour with which they hold that point of view. Others see little or no such risk. As a member of Parliament I have attempted to weigh these concerns, noting that my constituents are completely divided on the subject.

In the end, I have decided to defend the constitutional right of homosexual couples to civil marriage. The proposed legislation is consistent with the Constitution, the charter and our history as a tolerant nation.

I will be equally vigilant in defending religious marriage and religious freedom, for it is equally clear that neither the Christian community nor the other communities of faith can be compelled to accept or perform same sex marriage. That freedom, to quote the Supreme Court, “will be jealously guarded by the courts”, and I say today that it must be jealously guarded also by this House. Religious freedom must stand sacrosanct and religious marriage must stand as the exclusive preserve of our communities of faith.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the motion for second reading of Bill C-38, the Liberal bill that proposes to redefine traditional marriage.

I am very disappointed at what the Liberals have done today in shutting down any possible motions and in fact trying to ensure that this matter is not fully debated. I hope that Canadians understand what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice has just done. He has shut down debate on one of the most crucial matters in the Canadian political scene today.

I have already addressed some of the concerns I have with the bill and with the manner in which the Liberals handled this issue during the course of the past several years. I do not want to repeat those points of debate at this time. What I do want to address today is the refusal of the Liberal government to allow the legislative committee on Bill C-38 to hear testimony on the substantial matters of the bill and the refusal to allow the committee to travel and hear Canadians' views on this important matter of social policy.

Let us recap what happened in 2003 when the justice committee examined this issue. The committee heard from a wide range of witnesses from all across Canada and travelled across the country. It was unfortunately turned into a sham by the Liberal-led majority on the committee which voted to shut down the committee before it could even issue its report.

The former justice minister, Martin Cauchon, had asked the House of Commons justice committee to travel the country and hear representations on same sex marriage from all walks of life. We did that and we were writing the report. Then on June 12, 2003 the Liberals on the justice committee, helped by the NDP and the Bloc, voted by a margin of one to recommend to the government that the committee not appeal the Ontario Court of Appeal ruling on this issue.

The committee's work was rendered irrelevant and the committee did not report back to Parliament on its hearings on marriage and the recognition of same sex unions.

I would like to remind the House that the Liberal government at that time actually replaced some of the regular members of the committee with others who were guaranteed to vote in a certain way, despite the fact that they had not heard the evidence.

During the course of those committee hearings, we heard from a broad spectrum of witnesses, including not only representatives from religious faiths but also economists, lawyers and academics. These included such respected figures as Dr. Dan Cere and Dr. Margaret Somerville from McGill University.

Simply hearing the evidence without having the opportunity to evaluate it and report on it to the justice minister and the House of Commons does not do the committee much good. It is hardly a substitute for a substantial hearing on the matter.

The Liberals are once again trying to stifle not only the House, as the parliamentary secretary just did a few moments ago, but they are also trying to stifle the committee. Instead of bringing this matter to the full justice committee where the justice committee could have heard substantive evidence from all types of witnesses and could have travelled this country to hear from witnesses, they have referred it to a special legislative committee.

According to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, special legislative committees can hear witnesses only on technical matters. As such, the committee itself has no jurisdiction to change its mandate. It is bound to hear only technical evidence. Regardless of what the Prime Minister has promised, regardless of what the justice minister has promised, the committee has no jurisdiction to change that Standing Order.

The common statement is that a committee is master of its own procedure. That is not correct in this situation. In fact the committee is bound by the provisions of the Standing Order. Standing Order 113(5) reads as follows:

Any legislative committee shall be empowered to examine and enquire into the bills referred to it by the House and to report the same with or without amendments, to prepare a bill pursuant to Standing Order 68 and to report thereon and, except when the House otherwise orders,--

The House can otherwise order--

--to send for officials from government departments and agencies and crown corporations and for other persons whom the committee deems to be competent to appear as witnesses on technical matters, to send for papers and records, to sit when the House is sitting, to sit when the House stands adjourned, and to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it.

The jurisdiction that the committee has is limited by Standing Order 113(5). While credit should be given to the hon. member for London--Fanshawe for doing his best to persuade the Prime Minister of the necessity of expanding the committee's mandate, it is highly doubtful that these promises can be carried through.

Again it is another example of the Prime Minister making a promise and breaking that promise, knowing full well that the committee that is going to hear this matter cannot do what the Prime Minister publicly stated to Canadians it would do. The Prime Minister knows that. He has in fact misled Canadians on that point.

What specific assurances can the Prime Minister give that there is authority for the committee to hear evidence beyond technical evidence? The point is quite clear that he cannot give any assurances. Only this House can give those assurances. That is why the parliamentary secretary stood up today to make sure that there are no further motions, to make sure that the jurisdiction of the committee cannot be expanded.

The Prime Minister stood before Canadians, including the member for London--Fanshawe, and made all kinds of promises about how the committee was going to do what committees usually do. In fact he knows that he has misled his own member for London--Fanshawe and he has misled the Canadian people on this fundamental debate.

The parliamentary secretary himself has indicated that there will be no travel across Canada. What do Canadians get from this technical hearing at a committee? A number of bureaucrats, a number of justice department lawyers telling Canadians what is good for them. It is a prime example of when Liberals come to Ottawa. They do not represent to Ottawa what Canadians want. Rather, they tell Canadians what Ottawa wants. This is a perfect example of telling Canadians what Ottawa wants, and not telling Ottawa what Canadians want.

According to the most recent statements by the justice minister, the minister states he is not aware of any promises the Prime Minister has made to the member for London--Fanshawe. That is interesting. The Prime Minister stood up on national news, on national TV. Everyone in Canada heard those assurances by the Prime Minister, and the justice minister has said that he is not aware of any assurances that were made. Then his parliamentary secretary walked in here and shut down debate to ensure that the Prime Minister's promises cannot be kept. That is shameful conduct for the Prime Minister of Canada.

The Minister of Justice said in response to a question:

Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any backroom deal. I only know the answer I gave to a question asked by the hon. member in the House, to which the hon. member referred.

I said that any special legislative committee that was set up would address this bill in hearings as it did any other bill.

What the Minister of Justice is saying is that there was no backroom deal. Canadians know that there was no backroom deal. The Prime Minister made those commitments publicly. Promise made, promise broken.

The Prime Minister must now explain to the Canadian people why he has specifically broken his word to the member for London--Fanshawe, to the members in this House and indeed to the people of Canada. Why is he shutting down debate in this House? Why is he limiting debate in committee?

The Prime Minister has held out false hope on a number of occasions. This is only the latest example of a promise made, a promise broken.

[Belinda Stronach, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today in support of Bill C-38, both as a citizen of this democracy and as a proud Conservative. In an ideal world, I wish that we did not even have to be here in Parliament discussing the concept of marriage, a matter much better suited to the private world of individual relationships between fellow human beings. But I am a realist. The courts have been speaking in unison across the country in support of individual rights and we must take up our responsibility in this chamber.

At the core of the issue in Bill C-38 is the definition of marriage. We cannot cut it any other way. It is hard to imagine a more personal or emotional question, and we all have our own views. I have been talking with my fellow citizens in Newmarket and Aurora for months and canvassing their views. I wanted to make sure that I had the benefit of their input before I voted on the earlier amendment and on the bill.

Two conclusions emerged from those consultations. First, my riding is as divided as the country is on the issue so there is no overwhelming majority opinion. Second, the overwhelming majority of people do not raise the issue unless asked directly. Most set their priorities for what they expect from government in other areas, such as jobs, good quality health care, education, public services like mass transit, safe streets, the environment and so on. There is a lesson in here for all of us.

My own approach to the core issue of Bill C-38 relates both to rights and to my appreciation of my own conservatism. It is not about homosexuality.

On the first aspect, the discussion of same sex marriage is a question of rights and equality before the law. For me it is quite simple: how can we, as citizens in a modern democratic Canada, think that we can enjoy a right and then deny that right to a fellow citizen? If we want the right to be considered married, then that right must apply to each and every person. We cannot divide and choose among rights; they are indivisible. A right must exist independently of its exercise. It is a question of being fair, and fairness too is a Canadian value.

The same litmus test of fairness and rights applies equally to the other side of the equation. Churches and religious leaders have the right not to perform same sex marriages. I have argued consistently that this was a necessary part of the package since the very first day I entered public life. With rights come responsibilities, and if a church decides for its own reasons not to marry a same sex couple, then that couple should look for a different church that does or have a civil ceremony.

When compromises are presented to find ways to substitute other equivalent legal benefits for the right to be called married, I still find myself at the same place. I appreciate and understand that the effort to find compromise is taken to broker a way forward. However, the fact that the right to be called married is at the core of the law means that there is for me no way around that reality. That is what the right is all about.

My position on Bill C-38 is taken as a conservative. I respect very much the views of others based on the values they perceive in traditional marriage, but for me the transcending and overriding value is the liberty of the individual to choose what is right for herself or himself without the state telling her or him what to do, how to arrange their lives or how to behave. I think John Stuart Mill summed it up in his classic formulation: “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign”.

As long as a person is not violating the rights and the safety of others, my conservatism is about his or her freedom: freedom to act, to choose one's own path, the freedom to pursue potential and dreams without having to live through the values of others. For me this debate is not about whether traditional marriage between a man and a woman has any more value than another kind of marriage, but rather that it is none of my darn business to try to tell another individual that my kind of arrangement has more value.

Canada's laws that protect individual rights and liberties should be separate from the grand debates of moral conscience. Those laws protect all of us equally, conservatives whether more traditional or less traditional, liberals, churches and minorities.

To borrow the words of U.S. congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, “The only way to make sure people you agree with can speak is to support the rights of other people you don't agree with”.

There is an even greater responsibility facing members of this House. When the debate on Bill C-38 is over and the voting is completed, Canadians expect us to move on to the issues that really matter to them and quickly. We need a strategy in this country to be the most competitive in the world. We need policies that will create quality jobs. We need leadership on education. We need a competitive tax structure. We need to rebuild our relationship with the United States.

Before ceding the floor, I would like to thank and congratulate the leader of the Conservative Party for having allowed a free vote on this bill, a piece of legislation that cuts to the heart of our beliefs as individuals. I think that all members of the Conservative caucus appreciate his decisive leadership on this matter.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with the opposition day.

On Friday, we will return to Bill C-43, the budget bill. If it is completed, we will proceed with Bill C-40, respecting the WTO.

The first item of business on Monday will be Bill C-40. If necessary, we would then return to the budget bill, which contains all the initiatives that I know Canadians support from coast to coast to coast, like the Atlantic accord, the new deal for cities, and the increase in payments to seniors through OAS.

We will then return to the second reading debate of Bill C-38, the marriage bill, which will be the first item on Tuesday. When that business is completed, we will return to departmental bills: Bill C-23, Bill C-22, Bill C-26 and Bill C-9.

Next Wednesday shall be an allotted day.

Petitions

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have another of many petitions that we get from our ridings where the petitioners are concerned about the outcome of Bill C-38. They insist that marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman. These are people from St. Paul's Presbyterian Church in Warwick Settlement, New Brunswick.