Debates of Oct. 6th, 1998

Division No. 237

[The Speaker]

It being 6.13 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Marriage Act, 1997

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

moved that Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act and the Interpretation Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to ensure that a marriage is void unless it is a marriage between one unmarried man and one unmarried woman.

There has been considerable interest in the bill by many Canadians. Thousands of them have signed petitions which have been presented in the House. Many are watching now and they will read the debates as they are reported in Hansard . However, they may not understand the procedure and what is going on. I propose to talk for a few minutes about the procedure.

This is Private Members' Business and my bill has not been deemed votable. Therefore it is entitled to up to one hour of debate tonight, after which it will be dropped from the Order Paper without a vote. I am permitted a 15-minute speech and a five minute wrap up. Other members are entitled to speak for no more than 10 minutes each, up to a maximum of 40 minutes.

I wish to use my initial 15 minutes to briefly outline some of the intricacies of Private Members' Business as I am sure most Canadians are not familiar with this aspect of our rules. I wish to discuss my bill and why I believe it is needed now. In my wrap up I shall try to deal with some of the points made by other hon. members.

Like many other members, I have drafted bills and motions. Our names are put into a drum. Once in a while a draw is held. My name was picked and I chose to put forward Bill C-225.

The rules try to ensure that there are about 15 public bills and 15 motions on the Order Paper at all times. A subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs known as the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business meets to select five motions and five bills to deem as votable. This procedure continues as bills and motions are dealt with in the House.

In my case there was room for only one bill to be chosen votable as there are still four votable bills on the Order Paper. A number of bills were vying for this one slot, including mine.

The subcommittee consists of six members of parliament: two Liberals, one Reform, one Bloc Quebecois, one NDP and one PC. The committee listened to the submissions of the MPs and chose another bill as votable. No reasons were given and none are required to be given under our rules. Only one-third of the committee is members of the governing Liberal Party.

This bill which I consider so important gets one hour of debate and then disappears.

That is a thumbnail sketch of how we got here tonight.

Turning to the substance of the bill, section 1 reads:

A marriage is void unless it is a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife and neither the man nor the woman was married immediately prior to that union.

There is nothing startling there. It is the definition that we have always known in Canada. I presume most people would think that it is already in the law of Canada. It is not. The purpose of my bill is to enshrine in statute that a marriage is valid only when it is a marriage between one unmarried man and one unmarried woman. In other words, neither multiple parties nor parties of the same sex may get married.

I asked both the previous justice minister and the present justice minister to support the bill. You will hear from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice or some other designated member of parliament as to why the justice minister does not support the bill, but I will tell you now what those reasons are.

One of the things that has been stated in a letter by both the previous and present justice ministers is the following:

The definition of marriage in federal law is not in a statute passed by Parliament, but is found in what is called the federal common law, dating from an 1866 British case of Hyde and Hyde v Woodmansee. This case has been applied consistently in Canada and states that no marriage can exist between two persons of the same sex, or between multiple wives or husbands. Thus, the definition of marriage is already clear in law in Canada as the union of two persons of the opposite sex.

That is what the justice ministers have said in writing.

What is important to note in this statement is that the definition of marriage is to be found in federal common law. Common law is, plain and simple, judge made law. Therefore, it can be changed at any time by judges. There is no statute to guide or restrain judges.

The Department of Justice has indicated in writing reasons why it does not support the bill. According to the Department of Justice one of the reasons is that it is clear in federal law what a marriage is. That is not an accurate statement of the law. Why do I say this? Because there are numerous continuing challenges in our courts to this definition, both by those who wish same sex unions to be recognized as marriages and those whose religious beliefs permit multiple wives or husbands.

One case will illustrate this point. The case is Layland and Beaulne v Ontario Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Attorney General of Canada, et al. In this case decided by three judges of Ontario in the divisional court, two male homosexuals sued to force the province of Ontario to issue them a licence to marry. If as the justice department states the definition of marriage is already clear in law, we would have expected a unanimous decision against the applicants. In fact, the decision was two to one. I will read some brief excerpts from the dissenting judgment:

I am of the view that restricting marriages to heterosexual couples infringes and violates the applicants' section 15(1) charter rights and that such violation cannot be justified under section 1 of the charter. I also agree with the position of the church that there is no common law prohibition against same sex marriages in Canada.

In this case the church was the Metropolitan Community Church of Ottawa. She goes on: “In the opening paragraph of these reasons, I have noted that the common law must grow to meet society's expanding needs.... To say that the state must preserve only traditional heterosexual families is discriminatory and contrary to the equal benefits and guarantees they”—that is, homosexuals—“are entitled to at law.... A rule with a discriminatory purpose may not be justified under section 1”—of the charter. “Further, I agree with counsel for the applicants that there is no rational connection between supporting heterosexual families and denying homosexuals the right to marry. It is illogical and has no beneficial impact on the goal. To deny them the right to marry is a complete denial of their relationship and a denial of their constitutional rights”.

If the law is clear as the justice minister and the justice department state that it is, then this judge should never have made these statements in a dissenting judgment. The fact is that in the next such application, the dissenting judge could find an ally and the decision could be two to one in the opposite direction. This is entirely possible and predictable since the current law is judge made common law.

If the law is to be clear as the justice ministers would have us believe, it must be confirmed in statutory form so that a judge cannot draw the conclusions drawn by the dissenting judge in Leyland.

The justice department is just plain wrong to say the bill is unnecessary. They say that the usual legislative principle is to legislate only to cure a legal problem or advance a legal issue. Bill C-225 cures a legal problem, namely the incorrect thinking of the dissenting judge and allies she may have in the judiciary, and it advances a legal issue, namely that only single people of the opposite sex are permitted to marry.

The Department of Justice contends that the same concept of marriage is present throughout the world. This also is not accurate. A very large part of the world condones multiple marriage partners, something foreign to our society. Indeed, Queen Elizabeth recently visited the Sultan of Brunei who together with his two wives hosted a state dinner for the Queen. Bill C-225 would confirm that marriage in Canada does not include multiple spouses.

Is there a move to legitimize bigamy or polygamy? Let me quote from an October 1, 1998 article by Stephanie Nolen in the Globe and Mail , a newspaper that has been pushing for the legitimization of same sex relationships for years. Members will not believe it. Talk about current. The editor's note reads:

No need to waste it, so a growing number of couples think. They have embraced an alternative to the married-couple-for-life scenario, a style of relationship called “polyamory” where primary partners branch out to other partners, but in committed relationships too. But in an age when the traditional idea of marriage is taking it on the chin, polyamory makes some sense. Read on.

To quote from the article:

Polyamory (loving more than one) means maintaining intimate relationships with several people.

“There are greater numbers and greater acceptance for polyamory” says Brett Hill, co-editor of Loving More. “It's definitely changed since we started publishing 15 years ago”.

Poly relationships range from the couple in a long-term union who each see other people casually, to the committed threesome, to the polyfidelitous groups living a “married” life in multi-adult households.

Even child raising is better when you are poly, the proponents say.

Boy, talk about poly. The next step is the legitimization of polyamory and trying to get a marriage licence for three, four or five partners.

The justice department's considered legal opinion as the chief adviser to the chief law officer of the crown is “this bill risks opening further debate”. Oh my goodness. Debate. The legal advice of this department is that it risks opening further debate.

The Government of Canada needs a new law firm because that is not legal advice. That is political advice. This is the place for society's policies to be debated and decided, not in the policy cubicles of the Department of Justice and not by judge made law.

My colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, an avowed homosexual, in debate on Monday, June 8 made the following comments with which I wholeheartedly agree: “It is true that we would like the members of this House to make known their views on recognition of same sex spouses. To be sure, a debate must take place. Reformers are right when they say it is unacceptable in a democracy to leave it to judges to make the decisions. My colleague is right saying that this debate should be held in the House. We must vote on an important matter such as this”. He was talking about same sex benefits.

In conclusion, Bill C-225 is the vehicle to have this debate. The concept of marriage as it has always been in Canada is under attack. It continues to take it on the chin, as the Globe article put it.

It is time that the definition of marriage as the union of a single male and a single female was taken out of the hands of judges and judge made law and judge changed common law and put into a statute of the Parliament of Canada expressing the will of the people of Canada. Since the definition in Bill C-225 is argued by the justice department and the justice minister to be clear and since the justice minister has written “counsel from my department have successfully defended and will continue to defend this concept of marriage in court”, there can be no logical reason not to enshrine the principle in statute law.

The only real reason for not supporting this bill is fear of debate. That is not only shameful but it is truly lamentable.

I ask the House to support this bill.

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a bill that would formalize in law that a marriage is between a man and a woman. It is clear legislative recognition that it is the union of a man and a woman intentionally for life.

Sometimes when I am back in my riding of Calgary Centre, constituents will eagerly with hope in their eyes want to know some of the details of the affairs of the nation. I can anticipate some confused looks, perhaps some perplexity and frustration when I advise them that the state of the nation and the time of this great House and hon. members and of course your valuable time, Mr. Speaker, and all at the taxpayers' expense has been to debate what a marriage is.

My office did some research on the history and current laws surrounding marriage in Canada. I studied it and began building my presentation for today.

I could quote from 130-plus years of history, from 1886 to 1995, of case law in this country that powerfully enshrines marriage as a voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, or the many legal statements that profoundly point out that marriage is an institution upon which the family is built.

I could have detailed the respective roles of the federal government and the provincial governments concerning marriage and have shown through a detailed analysis that the federal government establishes the legal framework and capacity for marriage. However, it is the provinces that enact the laws which provide for the solemnization and the formal marriage ceremony. Or, I could have gone outside Canada and examined marriage down through the ages. It is easy to demonstrate that a one man-one woman for life definition of marriage has been the norm in most stable cultures from the beginning of recorded history.

I began down each of these tracks but something was missing. It seemed I was just repeating the obvious. Men and women get married. It is recognized by law. Marriage is a quality institution that has been around since the beginning of recorded history. However this was not touching the heart of the issue we have before us today. It seems to me there is something deeper that needs to be addressed.

In the storm of ideas in today's life it seems we have forgotten some of the basics. We have been intimidated by accusations of discrimination when we point out that there are differences. We have been barraged with the call for equality. Then it is implied that when things are equal they become the same. We know it is not true. Some things are different, just as some relationships are different from others.

Why marriage? How does it work? Perhaps by considering these questions we will be more clear on what is best, no matter what we call it.

Marriage as it is currently understood is an inclusive arrangement, I would argue. Does it not include both genders? Neither one is excluded. Is it not inclusive? The equality of the sexes must not be confused with the sameness of the sexes.

In marriage a man in relationship with a woman gains insights, sensitivities and strengths that she brings to the relationship, and vice versa for the woman with the man. This intimate relationship between a man and a woman involves giving time to understand the other person's perspectives on the challenges that life brings.

A lifelong committed union of a man and a woman in marriage creates a unit that is stronger than the sum of the individuals because the differences complement one another.

In a prominent Canadian court case the ruling read:

Marriage has many other characteristics of which companionship and mutual support is an important one.

The court also stated:

Marriage is the institution on which the family is built and with the capacity for natural heterosexual intercourse as an essential element.

What about children? The children of a marriage should be considered. Teachers, and my wife is one, have a saying. They say that more is caught than taught. Intimate, committed marriage provides the best possible learning ground for the socialization and character development of children. Boys who have a lifelong example of a father who is patient with his wife, kind, polite to her, calm, forgives, is truthful, is trusted and is protective toward his wife are more likely to be that way themselves. More is caught than taught.

The same concept applies for daughters. Both genders learn from myriad subtle character messages that children pick up from different gender parents. These models help them to decide and to relate to their own life mate.

This kind of positive character modelling within and across genders does not stay confined to the home but continues with the children outside the home and adds to the stabilizing and strengthening component of society as a whole.

Recent Statistics Canada studies record that children in home relationships with both parents have far fewer behavioural problems and a significantly higher percentage complete high school.

In addition, we celebrate anniversaries in this land. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you have sent out congratulatory comments to those who celebrate anniversaries. When we talk to these people, happily married men and women, about marriage they talk about it in terms of entering into a marriage covenant, not a contract. A contract states that I will participate as long as the other party delivers, but a covenant states that I am committed to a person for life without performance demands. For these people divorce is not even an option. This makes the proper selection of a life mate all the more critical and the need to go beyond physical attraction is apparent.

Marriage is an institution that defies those who want to promote the gender war. A loving, caring marriage, and many still exist, is a beautiful reconciliation of a man and woman. It develops good character in both parties. It allows procreation and is the best environment for raising children. They learn by example.

Canadians believe in marriage and they make it work. In 1995, an average year, there were approximately 6.3 million married couples in Canada. That year 98.8% of them decided it was worth it and stayed married. A little over 1% got divorced but 98.8% said it was worth it and stayed married.

It is interesting in a recent Angus Reid poll on the state of the family in Canada that our young people also aspire to having stable marriages and families. Some 93% of the youth in this poll predicted that their families would be the most important in their life and 80% of them believed that marriage was for life.

The Liberal Party's position as of its most recent convention allows marriage to exclude one gender or other from the relationship and allows for two men to marry or two women to marry. This is a contradiction to current Canadian law which repeatedly recognizes marriage as the voluntary union of a man and a woman, which by the way is exactly what the Reform Party membership has in its policy book.

Tragically, rather than bringing its position forward for public debate in the Parliament of Canada and to clarify the law, the justice minister chooses to defer to Liberal appointed judges to make changes independent of the will of the people of Canada. Increasingly judicial activism within the justice system is resulting in court rulings which are taking Canadian law in directions that are contradictory to the representative collective voice of the people.

For this reason it is a prudent step to further define marriage relationships in federal legislation. I support Bill C-225. Let me conclude by saying that for some this is a troubling topic, troubling in the fact that we are even seriously debating it.

The reassuring fact for me is that a man and a woman committed to intimate mutual care and a relationship for life to the exclusion of all others has been and will always be the most rewarding human relationship that they both can have, that the children can have, and for society. This is the truth. No matter how we want to play with the words, it will not change.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate, but I am also a bit surprised. First of all, we should not forget that the conditions of a valid marriage are not an issue this Parliament should be dealing with. We should not suggest that the federal Parliament has anything to do with this issue. That is why I do not think the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest is addressing a pressing issue.

The issue we should take a stand on and debate in this House is whether we believe that two men or two women can really love each other and live with a certain set of values I share. Citizens who are taxpayers and concerned members of their communities deserve some recognition on the part of the legislator.

But let us start at the beginning. We should take into consideration the fact that, in the next few weeks and months, various courts of law and administrative tribunals will render their decisions.

A minute ago, I was quite proud to hear the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest quoting from my remarks. He said: “The hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve would like a debate in Parliament.” I agree. This debate should take place in Parliament. However, when I stated that position, I was speaking as the sponsor of a bill on the recognition of same sex couples.

Let anyone give me a reason why two men or two women who freely engage in a consensual union—which is what we are talking about here—and want to spend the rest of their life together could not have some kind of institutional recognition of their union.

For some, this institutional recognition will be marriage. For others, it will be a civil union contract. Throughout the world, dozens of countries allow two men or two women to have their commitment and their mutual obligations and responsibilities legally recognized.

From what I see in the gay community, marriage is certainly not what the majority wants and certainly not the most pressing issue. What I see in the gay community, which is my community, are people, two men or two women, who live together, who support each other and who match perfectly the definition of spouse.

In law, what are the three attributes that define the concept of spouse? I know there are distinguished lawyers in this House. There is one on my left and one on my right. I do not think I am mistaken when I say that, in law, the concept of spouse comprises three elements: cohabitation, common repute and, in certain cases, the presence of children.

If two men or two women not only choose to engage in a union, to support each other and to share their daily existence but also define themselves as such within their community, let anyone give me one good reason why these people should not be recognized as a couple.

Why should they be recognized as a couple? Because if we do not do it, we send two extremely negative messages to the public. First, we lead people to think that this type of commitment between two men or two women is less genuine, less noble, less worthy of respect that a commitment between a man and a woman, and this is not true.

If some people here have doubts about that, why not consider the Nesbit-Egan couple, in British Columbia, who have shared their lives for more than 40 years. They have all the characteristics of a loving couple, active in their community and deserving of their peers' respect.

There is a second reason for recognizing same sex relationships. I remind this House that this is the true issue that we will have to deal with because, in the next few months, courts of law as well as administrative tribunals will be asking legislators to amend legislation.

Two men living together are citizens and taxpayers as well as consumers of services. If, as a member of parliament, I live with someone for two, three or four years and that I die, I would like anyone to give one good reason why my partner should not be entitled to a survivor's pension? Why should my partner not be entitled, when he goes to employment insurance, to a moving allowance? Why should he not be able to benefit from a registered retiring savings plan? Why should my partner be exposed to discrimination in the area of immigration?

There are about 70 federal statutes giving a heterosexist definition of a spouse. I think we have the responsibility, as lawmakers, to ensure that we also have a homosexist view of the issue.

It is rather surprising to hear what the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest had to say. I do not question his good faith. However, I am surprised to hear that he is taking a strictly legalistic point of view.

I urge the hon. member, when he replies, to tell us if, yes or no, he recognizes that two men or two women can live together, be attracted to one another and enter freely into a relationship. Because this is what it is all about. When someone is gay, when someone is a homosexual, no one forces that person to get involved in a relationship. There are, of course, people who do not get involved in such a relationship, who do not fully live up to their true nature, because of social pressure.

Could the hon. member admit that it can be a great thing, a fulfilling and respectable thing for someone to live in a same sex relationship?

A law professor once told me that from a legal point of view, moral standards become outdated faster than anything else. As lawmakers, we cannot take a moral stance and say that something is good or something is wrong, that some people deserve our respect and others do not. As lawmakers, the issue we always have to keep sight of is discrimination.

There is discrimination when lawmakers refuse to grant a category of citizens rights another category of citizens enjoy. And that is what happens when we refuse, as members of parliament, to recognize same sex spouses.

The real issue we will have to debate in the coming weeks will not be marriage but the recognition of same sex spouses. I will personally introduce a private member's bill providing for recognition of same sex spouses.

I heard people say “If we attack the institution of marriage, if we refuse to believe that children must be raised by a man and a woman engaged in a strictly heterosexual relationship, we will undermine the institution of marriage, and not only will we undermine the institution of marriage, but we will, at the same time, undermine society”.

Can we recognize that there are many different kinds of relationships? The speech by the member for Scarborough Southwest was certainly a moving appeal—I am not questioning his good faith—for the traditional family as we know it.

However, the model the member is calling for, that is a man and a woman with children, is no longer the only and dominant model. There are many single parents who raise their children alone and who instil into them extremely respectable values. They are well adjusted and active in society and they deserve our respect as citizens.

I believe that the member for Scarborough Southwest is raising an outdated issue we should not be debating in the House, because marriage falls under provincial jurisdiction. I believe we must put an end to discrimination and, for federal members of Parliament, this means we must recognize same sex spouses.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for his hard work on the recognition of the rights of same sex partners.

We in Canada live in a country in which the highest court of the land, the constitution of our country and the charter of rights have affirmed that gay and lesbian people are to be treated with equality, with equal respect and dignity.

That court has gone on to state that an essential element of that equality is recognition of the relationships of gay and lesbian people, that those relationships too are relationships and should not be treated with any kind of special rights or preference but with equality.

It is for that reason I rise in my place today to oppose the bill which has been put forward by the member for Scarborough Southwest. He set out accurately the legal realities, the fact that there is no federal statute that governs the issue of capacity for marriage. Yes, it is the courts that have ruled to date that two men or two women may not legally marry.

The member made reference to the eloquent dissent of the divisional court in Layland and Beaulne, but that remains a dissenting judgment. He suggested that perhaps people were afraid of the debate. Certainly I welcome the debate. I do not think anyone is shirking this debate. It is long overdue that we look at the nature of our relationships and how as a society we can sustain and affirm those relationships.

Frankly I had not intended to propose a bill on this subject. The member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve is quite right. There is considerable debate even within the gay and lesbian community about the priority which should be attached to the work toward recognition of gay and lesbian marriages. The fundamental issue is recognition of our right to equality across the board.

It seems to me that in acknowledging the importance of this as a choice, which is what it should be recognized as, for those gay and lesbian couples who wish to enter into it I do not believe federal law should deny that option. For that reason I have tabled a bill which would also amend the federal legislation and which would state that a marriage between two persons is not invalid by reason only that they are of the same sex.

In introducing that bill on March 25 of this year I stated that I believed our relationships should be celebrated and affirmed as just as loving, just as committed, just as strong as heterosexual relationships, and that federal statutes should reflect that equality.

The member for Scarborough Southwest suggested that the concept of marriage was under attack. I would question whether the institution of marriage is so fragile and so threatened that allowing gay and lesbian people who seek access to this institution would somehow cause it to come crumbling down. I do not believe that. I do not believe it would destroy it.

We have heard from the Reform member for Calgary Centre that one of the essential elements of marriage is procreation. How does he respond to an article in yesterday's Toronto Sun ? It is a story about Karl Thompson, age 92, who slipped a gold band on the finger of Yvon Geoffrey, 84 years old, and said “We never thought it would develop into this”. Loving companionship is what it is. They met during a bingo game six years previously. His granddaughter Michelle said “They are so much in love it is unbelievable. It makes you feel all warm and fuzzy”.

God forbid, a 92 year old him and a 84 year old her and no children, no procreation, is not a real marriage. Damn it, that is wrong. What defines a marriage and what should define a marriage is love, caring, compassion and a commitment for better or for worse, for richer or poorer, to one's partner. That is what should define it and that is what federal legislation should allow.

There have been changes in the law. In Holland the new government announced that it intends to move forward. It said that in the interest of strengthening the equal treatment of homosexual and lesbian couples the cabinet would this year introduce a bill to open civil marriage to persons of the same sex.

The Government of South Africa has announced that it intends to take the same step. We heard from this podium President Nelson Mandela speaking of the importance of equality. I am very proud of the fact that Canada is one of the only countries in the world, along with South Africa, that in its constitution recognizes and celebrates the equality of all citizens including those of us who are gay or lesbian.

Sometimes people do not understand the human dimension of our relationships. My colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve spoke about Jim Egan and Jack Nesbit who this year are celebrating 50 years together in a committed and loving relationship. Why on earth should they, or others in their situation who are embarking on that lifelong journey together, be denied the affirmation of marriage if they seek that affirmation?

I could talk at some length about my own relationship. I spoke earlier this year about the extent to which my relationship with my partner, Max, was for me truly life sustaining at a very difficult and painful time after a life threatening accident. I spoke as well about the fact that he sustained me as a caregiver during some very tough and difficult times.

If that relationship is not recognized as just as loving, just as compassionate and for me and my partner just as meaningful and strong, why not? Why should we not be allowed to celebrate that relationship before our families, our friends, our loved ones, in a marriage if we choose to do so? The member for Scarborough Southwest would say no, that option is not one that should be open to us. It threatens the concept of marriage. I do not believe it does any such thing.

Tragically that too many Canadians have only come to fully understand the relationships of gay people during the epidemic of AIDS. Time and time again I have personally witnessed the tremendous love, compassion and caregiving those who are living with a person with HIV or AIDS have experienced. I know members will be able to share these stories. Those are traditional family values that we should celebrate and affirm.

There has been significant progress in the recognition of our relationships. In a number of jurisdictions there has been movement on pensions, on recognition of rights and responsibilities when a relationship breaks down, and on adoption. However much work remains to be done in the areas of immigration and pensions. There is still a lot of work in a number of other areas of federal jurisdiction before there is full equality and justice.

It is important that parliament send a signal to all Canadian citizens that we are not threatened by diversity but that we celebrate diversity and that part of that magnificent diversity in our Canadian society is a recognition of the families and the partnerships of gay and lesbian people. I believe those partnerships should be recognized in marriage if that is the choice of the people involved. I believe federal law should allow that. For that reason I rise in opposition to the bill before the House today.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as with all debates in this hallowed place, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act and the Interpretation Act, put forward by the hon. member opposite.

As mentioned by numerous previous speakers, the purpose of the legislation is to ensure that marriage is void unless it is between one unmarried man and one unmarried woman. This is a strict legal definition. As with all legal semantics there is a broad range of interpretation. Social mores and marital convention are perhaps even more complex.

I congratulate the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest for bringing forward the legislation. It fosters a healthy debate within the Chamber, one that many feel needs to be pursued actively by Canadians from coast to coast. In my view the legislation crosses traditional party lines, extends beyond the elected representatives in this place, and needs to be examined by society as a whole. By its very nature the bill is personal and leads to as many opinions as the persons prepared to voice them.

While members of parliament may stand today in the House of Commons and loudly and proudly proclaim their parties' positions on what constitutes marriage in the legal sense, I would venture a guess that these opinions are not representative of their entire parties or even of their entire caucuses.

Although the Reform Party has offered the definition of marriage as referred to in Bill C-225 as being that of between a man and a woman, that definition was in relation to proposed fiscal reforms and not in relation to amendments to the Marriage Act.

Perhaps there will come a time in the House in which all members, regardless of political affiliation, will be able to express themselves on a legislative measure similar to the one proposed in Bill C-225. That time however is not here. With a private member's bill there has not been full debate, particularly amongst the Canadian public at large. Before such a debate occurs in public it must occur in society.

We need a larger public venue for as many Canadians and members of parliament as possible to take part in the debate. We need to be circumspect, tolerant and measured when approaching issues of human relations. Perhaps the venue should be through a legislative committee or a royal commission. Having said that, I do not profess to offer the position of the Progressive Conservative Party with respect to this bill.

This bill reflects a moral question. It is one which each and every Canadian needs to reflect upon and ask themselves what they consider to be a married couple. It needs to be fully debated in a forum in which all Canadians may participate and voice their opinions, regardless of political affiliation.

Canadians are demanding less rigid partisanship and I feel this legislation is a prime opportunity for members and the Canadian public as a whole to demonstrate such willingness for change.

Personally I do not see how Bill C-225 would improve the social and economic condition of Canadians. Although Statistics Canada points to the growing number of common law relationships and single parent families, will Bill C-225 change this reality of Canadian life?

I could not agree more that strong parental role models are needed and are crucial to the development of the child. Sadly this is not the case throughout the country. I hasten to add that more often than not good role models are becoming a rare commodity in our communities. If parliament passed a law such as Bill C-225 I would seriously doubt as to whether it would result in increased marriages between men and women.

Bill C-225 operates under the same assumption as the Liberal government's firearms act and the recent amendments; namely, that legislation will automatically result in a change hoped for by its proponents. It is a false hope.

What evidence does the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest or any other member have that would support this contention? How would Canadians benefit from this legislation? It begs the question: What priority should it be given at this time?

Let us talk less about legislation and more about real people and real families. Let us talk about a young couple, recently married, both with huge student loans. The wife is expecting a child and would like to stay home and away from professional life. Yet this couple cannot afford to sacrifice the wife's income so she can remain at home to care for her child.

Another example is of a husband and wife married for 10 or more years with two children. The husband is unemployed and unable to find work. The wife has taken a minimum wage job to support the family, thus taking her away from the family. They are struggling to make ends meet and the entire family will suffer.

Changing the Marriage Act will not impact on those scenarios one iota. It would not improve the conditions for those families. It would not improve the conditions for the couples and it certainly would not improve the conditions for the children. I challenge anyone to state otherwise.

I would like to propose another series of measures which would improve the quality of life for Canadian families, be they in the traditional role espoused by many in society or be they part of the growing trend toward new types of families, such as single parents and common law couples. We need to be talking less about amending federal statutes and more about choices that the federal government is making with respect to Canadian families.

Let us focus our time as parliamentarians on reducing the tax burden for Canadians instead of spending more time on amending the Marriage Act. Let us urge the government to increase the basic income tax exemption from $6,456 to $10,000 a year. This measure would take two million lower income workers off the tax rolls and save money for every single Canadian taxpayer.

Let us urge the government to cut employment insurance premiums to remove the largest single barrier to job creation in Canada today or urge the government to reduce the tax credit of up to 17% interest on student loans. Let us increase annual RRSP contributions which are limited now and change the rules so that low and middle income workers can save more money by purchasing RRSPs, or make the $4,000 registered education savings plan, the RESP contribution, tax deductible and allow part of the current RRSPs to be transferred without a penalty to RESPs. Let us spend our time as parliamentarians identifying cost effective and fiscally responsible ways to index the child tax benefit as proposed by my caucus colleague, the hon. member for Shefford.

Let us spend our time and effort urging the government to devote more resources to early intervention programs to prevent youth crime before it occurs. The Minister of Justice has already admitted that the level of support in her government for early intervention is currently embarrassing.

There is a shocking miscalculation of priorities that emanates from the government side of the House. Let us spend time highlighting the fact that the federal government only covers 30% of the cost of enforcing the Young Offenders Act, yet it will not listen to the provinces when they tell the Minister of Justice that her proposals are currently too weak.

Let us do more than just talk abut the threat of organized crime in this country and talk about how we can improve the peaceful existence of Canadians. Those are tangible, positive initiatives to truly strengthen Canadian families.

The Canadian family needs support. It is under tremendous pressure as to how it reacts as an institution to this pressure and it will determine the course that this country takes in the next generation. Canada's parliament needs to take decisive action to nurture our families.

In no way do I want to detract from the efforts or the motives of the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest, yet I am left to ask the same question repeatedly. What is the government doing to improve the situation for Canadian families as they currently exist? Will more young mothers and fathers be able to choose to stay at home and care for their children because the Marriage Act has been amended? I do not think so. Will there be more economic opportunities or employment opportunities as a result of these amendments? Again I would say no. Will we have fewer divorces or fewer child behavioural problems resulting from the proposed amendments? I do not believe so.

To me the answer comes from my constituents, those families who work hard, get by with less and live a reduced quality of life. They are the backbone of Canadian society. It is truly heartbreaking when an elected official gets visits, telephone calls and letters from constituents who are having trouble because of no fault of their own, trying to raise their family and trying to make ends meet. Not once have I heard someone come forward and ask me to change the Marriage Act. That is not the key to the solutions for the problems facing Canadian families.

As but one of 301 members of this House, I would therefore suggest that we establish a public forum, either a legislative subcommittee or a royal commission, to allow Canadians to express their collective opinion on this subject if it is deemed necessary.

This would be consistent with the approach that was taken by parliament in reviewing the Divorce Act through a special joint committee on child custody and access. Canadians need to hold open, vigorous and energetic debate on the amendments to the Marriage Act before parliament does so.

In the meantime, parliament has a responsibility and an obligation to Canadians to focus its time and resources on issues of priority.

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in two minutes I can barely address this subject of great importance. I want to say right from the very outset that I think this is just the beginning of a discussion. I do not agree in any way, shape or form with the proposal put forward by my colleague, although I respect his right to that point of view. I can see that there is a place for religious, spiritual and moral approaches from his perspective, but I see the role and relationship of the state in an entirely different light.

I think the relationship of mutual obligation based on partnership is absolutely fundamental. I think to bring in legislation in terms of lives in modern day society, and never mind 1866, is a contemporary pursuit that is absolutely necessary, where the principle of equality of both parties and the right to the division of assets on an equal basis, the right to benefits on an equal basis, the right to share that companionship and that mutual support and respect has nothing to do with gender politics and gender issues.

From my perspective I can tell members that discrimination based on sexual orientation is wrong. Discrimination where we cannot have a distribution of benefits equally among partners, whether they are two males, two females or a man and a woman, is wrong. I believe we have to have equal distribution of benefits and equal rights. It should apply equally to common law couples and to couples who are looking after each other in a loving relationship.

I would love to have further used the definition of the family by the Vanier Institute. I would have liked to quote the Prime Minister who has a very strong point of view. I would have liked to tell the House what we are doing at the provincial level which will result in very uneven decisions across the land or about what has been said in the supreme courts of the country. I cannot, but they all agree with what I have just said.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The last five minutes goes to the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest in whose name the bill stands.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in this brief time we have had an opportunity to see the beginnings of the kind of debate we should be having in the House.

We heard some good speeches. We heard some speeches with different points of view. This should not be the end. This should be the beginning. Unfortunately it will be the end because when I am finished speaking this bill is dead for all intents and purposes.

Some speakers missed some of the points. For example, the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas said that no one is shirking the debate. No one in here is shirking the debate because we are all here debating. However one of the stated reasons of the justice department for opposing the bill is that it risks opening further debate, particularly if referred to committee. The Department of Justice is shirking the debate, not members of parliament in the House of Commons.

Some speakers want to redefine marriage. I remind members that the position of the federal government, the position of the Government of Canada, the position of the minister, is that the law I quoted at the beginning is the law of Canada. The Department of Justice will continue to defend that law.

I am trying to put that in statutory form so that the judges of the country can see that the people of the country, as represented by their members of parliament, have spoken and give them guidance on the position of the government. Marriage is the voluntary union between one man and one woman who are not otherwise married. In fact that is what the majority of people believe a marriage should be. We are not talking about benefits. We are not talking about pensions. We are talking about the concept of marriage.

The member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve says that we cannot take a moral viewpoint in legislation. I could not disagree more. Everything we do in this place has a moral foundation to it, depending on how we were raised and how we look at things.

He talks about my taking a legalistic point of view. What do we do in this place? We pass laws. We control or try to control the lives of people based on the laws we pass in this place. Each and every one of us brings a set of moral guidelines which they consciously or subconsciously apply to every piece of legislation, whether it is gun control, tobacco restriction, tobacco advertising restriction, control of gangs and gang related activity, or the Criminal Code of Canada in which every sentence has a moral aspect. It is a complete code of what one must or must not do.

The member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve also said that the celebration of marriage was a provincial matter. That is completely incorrect in law. We have a federal Divorce Act. The reason for that is that marriage, the capacity to marry, is dealt with federally. It is up to the federal government to decide who can or cannot marry.

My friend asked whether two people could live together freely. Of course they can. Many people live together: brothers and sisters, uncles and aunts, lesbian and gay couples, but that does not make them entitled to marry as we have known it.

If we want to allow other types of relationships we will have to open it up to all kinds of relationships, and that is not a debate to take place in a courtroom. That is a debate to take place here because it is up to society to decide what relationships will be recognized as a marriage. It is not up to the courts.

The hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough went on and on about would this bill put a chicken in every pot, would this bill get a car in every garage. Of course it would not. All this bill is trying to do is enshrine in statute that which is currently the government's position, which is that there is no capacity to marry unless there is a male and a female.

In conclusion, as this is Private Members' Business this matter dies in about 10 seconds. I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to deem this bill votable so that we could debate the bill for another two hours and then have a vote.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Scarborough Southwest has asked that this bill be made votable. Is there unanimous consent that this bill be votable?

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

There is not unanimous consent.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Gilles Bernier, Progressive Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the dictionary defines competition as a rivalry between two or more businesses striving for the same customer or market. Accordingly if the Royal Canadian Mint carries through on its threat to borrow $30 million on the taxpayers' good credit rating and begins its risky venture into the coin blank market, it will become a competitor of Westaim Corporation from Alberta.

Westaim is a successful Canadian business with 110 employees in its coin plating division. For 35 years it has supplied coin blanks to the Canadian mint as well as to mints in countries around the world. However, in keeping with the government slogan that no good deed goes unpunished, the Liberals have decided to put this company out of business and its employees out of work.

This is not the first time the Liberals have interfered in a successful Canadian industry. In the 1970s the Liberal government of the day moved into the oil industry by purchasing Petrofina and setting up an intrusive national energy program. That brilliant scheme cost jobs, damaged the oil industry and wasted millions of precious taxpayers' dollars.

Why can this government not butt out and let the private sector take care of itself? Small and medium size businesses are the backbone of our Canadian economy. Throwing away money may be something this government has perfected, but putting companies out of business is going a little too far.

Experts from the South African and Birmingham mints have estimated that there is currently a 30% to 40% oversupply in the world coin blank market. They have predicted a reduction in demand in the near future.

Canadians are using cash and coins less and less. Why? Increasingly we are all using our bank cards, credit cards and in the very near future we will begin using electronic cash cards.

I would not want the government to be getting into the coin blank business now any more than I would have wanted it to get into the horse drawn buggy business in the 1900s. This venture would put the government into a start-up business in a sunset industry when there is already a saturated market.

Only two outcomes are possible, neither of which are desirable. Either the mint will bury Westaim and put its 110 workers on the unemployment lines, or the mint's new business will go down in flames and taxpayers will be on the hook for a minimum of $30 million.

Six months ago the mint started construction on its new coin plating plant, yet the minister does not have the authority of parliament to spend this money. Furthermore, the mint does not have the legal right to use the manufacturing process necessary to make coin blanks. Westaim owns the patent on this softening process and still has an unresolved lawsuit against the Royal Canadian Mint.

As a government owned crown corporation, the mint could have used the patent if it had bought a licence, but it did not. As a result, the mint cannot legally manufacture coin blanks with this process and it is tied up in a lawsuit that might scuttle the entire project.

In conclusion, I have two questions. How can the minister arrogantly risk taxpayers' dollars on a project that might never see the light of day? If this matter is before the courts, why is the minister allowing the construction of the coin plating plant to continue?

[Carolyn Parrish, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, the mint's mandate is to supply Canadians with coins that are of high quality, cost effective and delivered on time.

As a commercial entity, the mint generates a financial return to the Government of Canada by successfully marketing its minting services and coinage products worldwide.

In early April the mint began construction of a new coin plating facility in Winnipeg which will fulfil three objectives. It will guarantee a cost effective supply of plated domestic coinage; produce annual savings of approximately $10 million; and generate additional profits of $3 million annually from the production of foreign plated coinage.

The mint obtained the funds to build the plating facility from a private commercial institution, not from the government. The mint does not receive any government subsidies.

Under the current Royal Canadian Mint Act, the mint may borrow up to $50 million from the consolidated revenue fund or any other source. Members may recall that in May the government introduced Bill C-41, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act and the Currency Act.

One of the amendments proposes increasing the mint's borrowing limit to $75 million. This is not because the mint needs additional money to finance the plating facility. It has already obtained the financing it requires. The proposed increase will allow the mint to maintain a borrowing cushion or margin of safety as growth occurs in the years ahead.

The mint's competition is not with Westaim, not with private industry, but rather with foreign government mints. Some countries will only contract from government mint to government mint.

The mint's investments in its plating plant, its workforce and its new technology will ensure that it is well placed to be a leader in the global market.

I would hope that this clarifies once and for all the mint's mandate, its operations and the financing for its new plating facility.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on June 26, the Minister of Human Resources Development announced a regular POWA for the former workers of the BC Mine in Black Lake.

Yet a month before, he said in this House that these workers did not want a regular POWA because such a program was in unfair for workers. The minister got the message very clearly on June 26, when he announced the granting of a regular POWA, in Thetford Mines, because the workers made their disappointment clear, in no uncertain terms.

As the elected member for Frontenac—Megantic and representative of the workers of the BC Mine, I am asking two things from the Minister of Human Resources Development. First that he not use the extra $1.6 million that Jean Dupéré contributed to the fund for the calculation of his regular POWA. Second that he accept to sit down with Minister Louise Harel, of the Government of Quebec, and the president of the CSN, André Laliberté, in order to resolve the issue and destandardize his POWA with the $1.6 million from Jean Dupéré.

In conclusion, I want to remind the minister that many of the former workers at the BC mine have used up their employment insurance benefits, that the mine has been closed for almost a year, that older workers have difficulty finding a new job, that many of them are now in dire straits, that he and his government are standing in the way of any agreement that could lead to a satisfactory and quick settlement.

The Minister of Human Resources Development is the only one responsible for delays in the settlement for the workers at the BC mine. These men are anxious to live with security and decency.

I do hope that the Minister of Human Resources Development will soon have good news for the former workers of the BC mine in Black Lake.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada did move quickly to assist the British Canadian mine workers. In total we have granted some $4 million to help those laid off employees.

First in September 1997 we allocated close to $3 million for active measures to help the 300 or so affected workers quickly re-enter the labour market. Our active measures include targeted wage subsidies, self-employment assistance and skills development.

For instance in this case between 60 and 70 workers have found work at one of the other two mines run by Lab Chrysotile, the Bell mine or Lac d'Amiante du Canada. Approximately 60 others are interested in taking courses, 30 of whom are presently enrolled, with the other 30 starting in October. Seventeen have been placed by the Comité d'aide aux travailleurs de la mine B.C. through targeted wage subsidies. Three have started their own businesses, with another three being reviewed for possible funding. That is the first $3 million.

Last June the HRD minister also announced $1 million in funding under the program for older workers adjustment intended to help workers between 55 and 64 years of age. This measure will assist about 100 workers whose employment insurance benefits will soon be running out. But the provincial government has still not agreed to sign the POWA agreement to help these older workers. We hope that the Government of Quebec will respond positively and quickly so that we can begin to put these dollars in the hands of the 100 former miners who qualify.

The Government of Canada has responded responsibly to the British Canadian mine workers. We have put forward $4 million and a variety of programs to assist these Canadians through a difficult time.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.27 p.m.)