Mr. Speaker, as we were getting close to question period I was attempting to draw an analogy of this bill to a storefront. On the storefront it says “Men's clothing”, but there are side doors and back doors. The main business being done in that building is bootlegging. We will call this building the government building.
I want to show the House what has happened. I have received hundreds of petitions from my constituency concerning the term marriage and for every one of those petitions I have received this response from the government: “The term marriage in Canada is clear in law and is defined as the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others”. That is what the government is saying at the front door. However, the bill we are discussing will change the meaning of marriage forever and ever.
The government goes on to say: “There is no need to either enact this definition in legislation or to amend any existing legislation”.
While the government makes that statement, while it appears to be maintaining the definition of marriage and while it appears to be saying that it will preserve it forever and ever, this bill will clearly destroy the meaning of the term marriage forever and ever.
This bill will go down as the bill which, when put on the storefront, says marriage, but through the back doors and the side doors it is anything but.
There are many questions that have to be answered. When this bill is proclaimed, think of the hundreds of thousands of people who will be able to claim spousal benefits from life insurance policies who are in a relationship which is not based on what we consider to be a marriage.
The government cannot even ask this question. What about CPP death benefits? To whom will they go? Anyone will be able to challenge the current existing laws relating to the Canada pension plan, and they will.
This is probably the most serious bill that has come before the House in years. It is the beginning of the destruction of what we have had in this country from the beginning of time. This bill will destroy our heritage. This bill will destroy the terminology of marriage. Make no mistake about it, this bill will destroy the very moral fibre of this country. This is not a laughing matter. The government is going to have to answer to Canada. Unfortunately, Canadians will not see the ill effects of this bill for a few years.
What is the government's definition of the relationship of what we call the new nature? What is the relationship? How does the government propose to ensure that only those individuals who are engaged in a relationship of a sexual nature will get the surviving benefit? The question has been asked, but it has not been answered. How will the individual prove that the relationship is indeed a true relationship? Who is going to prove that? Canadians need to be worried about this. It is not so much my concern, it is a concern for my grandchildren and for their children.
We have come through a great era in the building of this country. Men and women, marriages and families have built this country. The government has destroyed it through the back door.
On top of that, the government has moved closure on something that is held high and dear by Canadians. Shame on the government.
Why are pension benefits extended solely on sexual activities? No one on the other side will answer the question. Those members do not care. What the government puts on the front door is not what is going in the side door and it certainly is not what is coming out. Shame on the government.
Will we now have sex inspectors to verify activity? Just think of that. That will take place.
Hundreds of acts will be modified by this bill through the back door. The government may say that marriage will never be changed, but this bill will change it. The government knows that, so it brought in closure.
If a person is currently married but separated and living with somebody else, who is the survivor? That question has to be answered before we can proceed with this bill.
I beg the government to pull this bill before tonight. It is wrong for Canada. It is wrong for the people living in this century. It will certainly be wrong for Canadians in the future. This is a terrible piece of legislation. Canadians, I am afraid, will learn that only too late.