Madam Speaker, I will take it into consideration but it will not change my opinion much about what is going on. What is going on is not right.
All we ask for is a debate on the topic in its entirety. We want all members of Parliament to speak their minds on important issues. What happens when debate is squelched on the Liberal side, or on any side?
What happens is that contradictions are raised that cannot be answered. Good points are raised that people cannot answer.
Canadians say that there must be something wrong, that there must be something insidious, that there is something behind the door, a backroom deal going on because they will not allow discussion to take place.
Listen to this contradiction if you will. When the Minister of Justice introduced this bill he said: "This bill does not confer benefits on same sex couples". That is the issue we are dealing with in this amendment.
On March 12, 1994, in a talk to Xtra West , the gay magazine in Vancouver, he said: ``If the government takes the position that you cannot discriminate, it follows as a matter of logic that you have spousal entitlement to benefits''. In the House on Wednesday he said that this bill had nothing to do with spousal benefits.
Two years ago to Xtra West , the gay magazine, he said: ``Absolutely, this will lead to spousal benefits''. We could debate the subject of whether homosexuals should have spousal benefits or not. Is it an issue we want to get into, such as sponsorship in the immigration department?
Are these the things we want to do? The minister also said that changes may not need to be extensive statutory amendments. They might just include regulations, such as immigration policy. Is that where we want to go as a country? Let us have a debate on it.
We cannot have a debate because the government will not let a debate happen. That is what is wrong. On this side on one day to one audience, the minister says: "Don't worry. There is nothing to it. It is just a simple amendment to make sure that we do not have discriminatory hiring practices". To that I say hear, hear.
Is that all it is about? Two years ago he said that this will lead to spousal benefits. We have a complete, absolute inconsistency from a minister, talking to two different audiences and sending two different messages.
When he does that it raises the concerns of many Canadians who ask what is the government actually doing? What message is it sending and who is it sending it to? Is it the same wherever the minister goes? I am not sure. That is the trouble with clamping down on legitimate debate. We could have a good airing of this. We could have a good discussion but the government will not let it happen.
It reminds me of what happened on the distinct society motion. When the distinct society was brought forward, some asked what does it mean? The government said do not talk about it and cut off debate. Members were not allowed to discuss it. I said that I had some concerns. When I have concerns I want them debated. I may not win my point. I may not always carry the day, obviously not, but I should have the right, as should all members of the House, to discuss important issues.
Is it not interesting that again we have two tiny words. First it was distinct society, now it is sexual orientation. What does it mean? We are not allowed to say that we have some concerns.
What has happened in this first group of amendments is that people have said they are not allowed to discuss it, they are not allowed to bring their concerns forward, the government will not allow them to talk about it. They are bringing forward some amendments to address the concerns of people that have been calling their offices, that have been bringing forward these questions. How else can it be done if members are not allowed to talk?
Members have brought forward amendments. Some of the amendments are strictly for that purpose, to give some of the members a chance to speak. If they say they are concerned about the redefinition of the family, they will throw an amendment in.
The minister says it is not about redefining the family, so members are moving amendments that state the family will remain defined as it is now in Canadian policy. That should put the issue to rest. If the minister is sincere that this bill does not involve spousal benefits, that it does not involve the redefinition of marriage, that it does not make any difference to the other areas these amendments address, then he will vote for them. He will say to the member for Scarborough West: "Right on, you've clarified this for the Canadian people. You've shown how this is not a backroom deal, there are no sweetheart deals, there is no backroom game plan, we were up front. This is what it does not mean". Just lay it right out.
If he is sincere in this then he will support these amendments. He will say that he does not want to scare anybody, open a can of worms or lead us down a path of unknown destination. He will say: "I'm going to show you my sincerity by voting for these amendments because I don't want to redefine marriage, I don't want to use this bill to extend spousal benefits".
Perhaps the people on the other side could listen for a second. It is interesting that the Canadian AIDS society asks how one knows when somebody is homophobic. Do members want to know? Some of these are very good ideas. When one laughs at gay jokes, at people who tell jokes about gays that put gays down and so on, that could be a sign that one is homophobic.
The second sign of homophobia is if one is against spousal benefits. It is interesting that during the debate on the private member's bill for spousal benefits last year, the whole flippin' cabinet voted against spousal benefits, pretty well the whole works. Why? Because they are flaming homophobics. Is that true? Of course it is not true.
What has happened in this House and what has happened over the last week is that we are not allowed to talk about the issue without being homophobic. Is it not something that the Canadian AIDS society would say that most of the Liberal Party are homophobics? They voted against spousal benefits. Shame, shame. I voted against it too. Does that make me homophobic? No more than it made the cabinet homophobic, than it made people over
there homophobic and many people over here. We are not homophobic. What does that have to do with it?
It is a stifling of debate. We are not allowed to discuss the issue. If you raise the issue at all, if you speak of it in public, you are homophobic. What a crockamole. It is an intrusion on the freedom of speech where people are not allowed to come into the House of Commons, of all places, and speak their minds, and certainly not outside of the House of Commons, certainly not in public, maybe not in private. Perhaps we need the thought police to come in and make sure our thoughts are right.
It is a disgusting display of strong arm tactics by people in the party across the way and also by certain societies that say: "Only my complete and full agenda is satisfactory". They are not satisfied to talk about it and educate one another, to talk about the issues of what should be a family. That is not the issue. We cannot talk about it.
I see people over there who have been here since ten o'clock this morning who have not been allowed to speak. What a shame. I have offered to split my time with members opposite. I have said that I will give up my time because I am allowed to speak over here. I would give up my whole time to the member for Ontario. But he is not allowed to speak. Members rush in from the back saying: "No, I will not let you speak".
Do the people of Canada think this is a democratic and free House? Do they think about changing the definition of spouse, not by debating it, because maybe there could be some consensus if they did? The Liberals say it is their way or the highway. Free debate is not allowed. They will do whatever it takes. They will use scorn, strong arm tactics, try to send us on trips around the world, whatever they can do to keep it quiet, because they do not want a discussion.
That is what is wrong with the debate, as much as anything else. That is why I am going to-