Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I have the distinct pleasure to stand before you and to
speak on a subject which has been troublesome for me, as it has been for many members in the House.
My colleague who just spoke represents an urban riding. I represent a rural riding. When we look at the demographics of those two communities we find that in part there is not a whole lot difference other than the population perhaps.
Our role as a member of Parliament is one that expects us to be accountable, responsible and to be representative for the majority view of our constituents.
It has always been my contention that in coming to this place I have never engaged in the kind of rhetorical debate we occasionally have in the House, something we must almost be ashamed of. I do not engage in that kind of debate.
I respect my hon. colleagues across the way as I respect all of those on this side of the House who at times seem to differ with and oppose me in some of the things I have supported in the past.
On this issue I felt it important to give support and perhaps even give some credence to the notion that some of us in the House, while not always supportive of the government view, hold some very strong opinions about issues. This is not because they are only my views or a particular member's views, but they are views shared by a majority of the constituents one represents.
The sexual orientation issue has been a very deeply moral issue for me and for the majority of my constituents. As a member of Parliament it is my moral obligation and my responsibility to defend and maintain certain traditional principles, values and the dignity of sacred institutions.
One of those sacred institutions which I strongly believe in has been the foundation and basis on which the country was founded and which has brought us to this point in history, the family. This is personified in the most basic form, the traditional family unit. In Parliament all of us in one way or another represent family.
For some of us that has been a very pleasant experience and for others there are memories that we would rather forget. There are experiences in each one of our families that we sometimes find very difficult to deal with.
The issue we are talking about today of homosexuality is something that is not benign to any one of us. Each one of us here probably has someone in our family who falls into that category. I am not one who believes in discrimination. I do not believe we ought to separate ourselves from people because they happen to be different from us.
I have an example in my own family. I am proud of my family. A number of years ago we adopted a little girl. She was Jamaican. She did not have the same colour skin as I have, but she was our daughter for a short time until she was tragically killed in an accident. I can appreciate those among us who represent a different culture and background, and we have among us on all sides of the House various people who represent those kinds of people.
I am bothered by the preamble of Bill C-33. It raises some questions. If this were properly addressed it could allay some of the fears some of us have on this bill. It simply speaks of family and the interpretation of that. Perhaps your view of family is different from mine and mine might be different from someone else's, but I believe it is important that there is an interpretation given of that. I believe the best way for us to interpret family is to say that the family is represented by a mother and a father, with children in the home. That is important.
The question has been brought to the forefront by Mr. Justice Lamer who, in speaking for the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada, stated that if the Canadian Human Rights Act included sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination he might well conclude that family status includes homosexual couples. The preamble is very vague in its definition of family. That is a concern of mine.
The traditional Canadian family is steeped in principles and values which are universal. They are at the root of every legally recognized traditional nuclear family unit. These families are the true pioneers of Canada and what is distinctly Canadian.
Canadians are concerned about what this amendment will mean to the traditional family unit and the definition of marriage and spouse. Another extremely sensitive area is the adoption of children by homosexual couples.
I am a Canadian. I am also a Liberal. I am proud to have raised a daughter and two sons who have rewarded their mother and father with three beautiful grandchildren. I hold family in high regard.
I believe the courts in interpreting legislation have demonstrated a willingness to read sexual orientation into it. That interpretation concerns Canadians.
All Canadians enjoy the same legal protection and basic human rights under existing laws. All Canadians, regardless of their background or preference, are concerned this amendment will alter existing laws to ensure full spousal rights for homosexual couples, including same sex marriage, pensions, health insurance, inheritance rights, tax privileges and immigration sponsorship. These concerns must be addressed specifically.
Each member has an obligation to listen to Canadians, to read the correspondence we receive in our offices, to communicate with our constituents, to address their concerns, to speak for them and to allow them to be heard in the House. Each member of Parliament is ultimately responsible and accountable to his or her constituents
and is a product of the constituents' evaluation of their performance, based on the position each of us takes on very sensitive issues.
The diversity of representation in the House of Commons through geography, culture, philosophy and tradition is truly characteristic of the Canadian demographic. We must provide leadership, even though we sometimes differ on issues, and rise above prejudice and the special interests to defend the integrity of Parliament.
An issue of emotional and/or controversial nature can be curtailed by allowing each member the privilege of articulating their voice within the scope of Parliament, the ultimate sound board of national representation.
The government has shown leadership in tackling difficult issues. While some may say I have on occasion voted against my government on sensitive issues which I felt were issues of principle, issues about which my constituents felt very strongly, I have also supported my government in almost every initiative it has put forward. The government has shown initiative in bringing our deficit into a relative state of stability. It has shown initiative in dealing with agricultural exports and the depletion of fish stocks. All of those issues I have supported, including many of the social initiatives which have been put forward through HRD. I supported those measures.
I am here as a proud Canadian this afternoon. I am not here to argue with my colleagues or to debate sensitive issues. I believe we can find consensus. I am here this afternoon to help my government show leadership in tackling these issues.
I am asking that the Prime Minister give consideration to allowing those of us in the House who feel inclined not to support this legislation, for whatever reason, to vote freely. For me it is a very personal moral issue. It is not just an issue of sexual orientation or of sexual discrimination. I believe it is in the best interests of the party and certainly of Parliament to allow for a free vote where members can exercise their democratic rights. I ask the House be given that privilege in the vote to come.