Mr. Speaker, I enter this debate with respect to the amendments in Group No. 1, which are concerned with the freedom of religion, expression and association, marriage, family and spouse, the Criminal Code and the preamble. With that in mind I will address the comments made by the Minister of Justice during debate on Bill C-33, which are in Hansard of April 30.
The Minister of Justice indicated on debate, "in my respectful view no participant has the moral high ground, no one is holier than any other". I wish to remind this honourable House that in in the preamble to our Canadian Constitution we recognize the rule of law and the supremacy of God.
By recognizing the supremacy of God we entrench in our laws natural law. Therefore, justice, law and morality are inseparable. Bill C-33 is an issue of morality. When legislating, Parliament must ensure that its laws are just and moral. The issue before the House is one of morality and conscience; therefore it is also an issue of one's religious belief, opinion and freedom of expression.
The justice minister in debate stated unequivocally, "it is an issue of human rights". What is a human right? I remind this House that the first right, the most basic right and the primary fundamental right is the right to life. Until Parliament addresses the right to life, from the moment of conception until natural death, it has no jurisdiction to extend the human rights to include sexual orientation.
To profess and to legislate that sexual orientation is a human right is to find that a human right is determined on the basis of behaviour, which is erroneous. To confer a human right on the basis of sexual orientation is to confer a special right, a specific right to a special interest group on the basis of behaviour identified by lifestyle.
To confer homosexuality as a human right on the basis of sexual orientation will provide homosexuals with a special legal status that will allow them to redefine the family, to redefine spouse, to enter into the realm of the sanctity of marriage, to infiltrate the curriculum of our schools and education and to impose an alternative lifestyle on our youth.
To legislate that sexual orientation is a human right is to elevate the existing legal test in Canada from one of tolerance to a legal test of condonation and acceptance.
All Canadians are equal before and under the law. Canadians are tolerant and compassionate people. However, by conferring a specific right to homosexuals in the Canadian Human Rights Act, Parliament is requiring Canadians not only to be tolerant and compassionate but also to condone and accept homosexuality as natural and moral.
Homosexuality is unnatural and immoral. The words unnatural and immoral are terms used in legal debate. Justice, law and morality are inseparable. As recognized by our justice minister, this is a moral debate.
I also wish to refer to Hansard wherein our justice minister attempts to refute arguments with respect to the rights this amendment in Bill C-33 will confer. He talks about family: ``It is suggested by some that this bill will either directly or indirectly undermine or diminish the importance of family in Canadian life''. I am one of those some.
Families have inherent and inviolable rights in Canada. Families have existed before the church and families have existed before the state. The rights of family must be safeguarded and protected.
The reference to the importance of family in the preamble to Bill C-33, which was included merely to appease those members of Parliament with morality and conscience issues on their minds, was in my opinion a grave error on the part of the Minister of Justice.
Introducing family in an amendment to confer special rights with respect to sexual orientation is a violation of the rights of family. It allows the very redefinition of family that we choose to protect.
In Hansard , the justice minister makes reference to his subjective opinion on how the bill will not affect his own family. Canadians are not interested in the subjective opinion of the Minister of Justice. He has no jurisdiction to impose that opinion on Canadian families.
With respect to the issue of religion, the Minister of Justice stated in Hansard : This bill is fundamentally consistent with the most basic teachings of religion''. He also stated:I developed a deep respect for the tenets of the Catholic faith. I suggest this amendment and the action it constitutes is completely consistent with those tenets''. This is not a matter for debate.
The Minister of Justice has exceeded his jurisdiction by speaking on behalf of the church. I use the word church in an all inclusive sense. The justice minister has made a pronouncement on issues of ecclesiastic law and canon law that is not within his jurisdiction. For the Minister of Justice to state that this bill is fundamentally consistent with the most basic teachings of religion is to interfere with the individual and personal freedom of religion and belief that every individual in Canada has, pursuant to our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
To state that this bill is fundamentally consistent with the most basic teachings of religion also closes the door on any religious defence that may be argued in future with respect to the introduction of Bill C-33.
"This bill is fundamentally consistent with the most basic teachings of religion", as stated by the Minister of Justice, is an interference with the domain and jurisdiction of the church. The principle of separation of church and state is well founded historically, culturally and in our laws. The state has no jurisdiction to interfere in matters of church.
However, the House should be reminded that the church has a right and a responsibility to concern itself with matters of state on issues of morals, values, principles and religion. In this regard I have called on the Minister of Justice by letter, and I do so here again today in the House, to withdraw the statements he made in this House specially with reference to religion, to withdraw the statement: "This bill is fundamentally consistent with the most basic teachings of religion-I suggest this amendment and the action it constitutes is completely consistent with these tenets".
I ask that the Minister of Justice be accountable for exceeding his jurisdiction in the House.