Debates of June 8th, 1999

Supply

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate this afternoon because I take the subject matter very seriously. Ultimately we are talking about minority rights. In a pluralist society of the kind that exists in Canada we have to take the matter very seriously and we have to tread very carefully.

While I truly question the motive of the Reform Party in putting forward the motion on the parliamentary calendar for today, I have no trouble whatsoever in supporting it. I will do exactly that later tonight and perhaps I will use some of my time to explain why.

I do not have any trouble supporting the institution of marriage. I consider it an essential part of the bedrock of society. Our society is founded upon the institution of marriage, and I cannot imagine civilization being without it as we know it.

I have some experience inside the institution of marriage. I was first married more than 39 years ago. I consider myself to be one of the luckiest men on the face of the earth. I have what I think is the perfect wife and perfect mate. I thank God every day that she came into my life many years ago.

Marriage is extremely important. We as parliamentarians have a duty to nurture and to support the institution of marriage. If we can do that in some small way through this kind of debate in the House of Commons, so much the better.

With those few words in support of the institution of marriage, I am more than happy to support the motion brought forward by the Reform Party.

Why do I question the motives of the Reform Party in bringing forward the motion? I question the motives of the official opposition because on this matter, which has to do not so much with marriage but with gays and lesbians, the Reform Party established a certain fact a long time ago, that it is very good at the business of scaremongering.

When it comes to minority rights relating to gays and lesbians, the Reform Party cannot think of anything better to do than to spread fear where very little fear exists. I think it was the member for Wentworth—Burlington who described the issue as an empty controversy. It is just that, an empty controversy.

I am not aware of anyone who is rushing around, pushing and advocating for some sweeping change in the definition of marriage. Maybe the Reform Party is. Maybe it is the only one, but I certainly do not hear it from anyone whom I would consider either credible or in large numbers.

The justice minister, speaking in the House this morning on behalf of the government, said that the government was not interested at all in changing the definition of marriage. I do not know of any significant group in the country that is demanding a change in the definition of marriage. There may be a few; there may be a few gays and lesbians around but I do not think they are in large numbers.

At this particular time in the debate I think gays and lesbians are far more interested in other issues connected with this matter, especially when it comes to equal benefits. There may be a few but I think it is an insignificant number. It certainly is not the kind of number that would warrant scaremongering, spreading fear by the Reform Party.

Are the courts in the country demanding that parliamentarians change the definition of marriage? I do not see that. I have read a number of judgments and, yes, they are pushing us with respect to providing certain benefits and to removing certain discriminatory practices. However I am not aware of any court that is saying that parliamentarians have to change the definition of marriage, that we have to change the law so that a man can marry a man and a woman can marry a woman. I do not see that at all.

The Reform Party is out in front leading the charge: the roof will fall in and we will face terrible changes. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It reminds me of the Reform Party on the issue of a carbon tax. What is the only party in the country that talks about a carbon tax? As far as I know it is not the Liberal Party. I do not know anybody in the Liberal Party who wants a carbon tax. I cannot speak for the Conservatives, but I do not think they are leading the way in calling for a carbon tax. I do not think the New Democrats are and I do not think the Bloc is. Nobody except the Reform Party talks about a carbon tax. The reason it talks about it is that it is in its interest to spread fear. It is called fearmongering. It is the same on this issue.

There have been decisions by judges, by courts, which in effect have said that gays and lesbians are treated with less respect than they deserve and that there are discriminatory laws, rules, and regulations in the country which ought to be removed. Slowly but surely that is where we as politicians and as institutions across the country are going. Those discriminatory practices are being stopped.

I am not aware of anyone saying that in the whole process we have to change the definition of marriage. As far as I know, the definition of marriage is a couple of opposite sex living together, the union of a man and a woman, and that is the way it will be. I do not know what it will be like 100 years from now or 300 years from now. We will all be long gone. However, for the time being I do not think there will be any change whatsoever.

When I listen to Reform Party spokespeople, the one thing I always listen for is whether they have respect for minorities, particularly minorities like gays and lesbians who perhaps face discrimination on a daily basis. We are really talking about tolerance.

Most Canadians are heterosexual. I do not know what the number is. Perhaps it is 98% or 99%. Most Canadians are married. They form a huge majority. It does not take much strength or courage to defend the majority, but it does take a bit more strength to defend the minorities, especially those who may face discrimination.

Members should go through Hansard tomorrow and look for the tolerance that comes from the Reform Party and look for the respect it would afford gays and lesbians. They will find very little, if any, evidence of that, which says a lot about that party.

Canadians know that it is a party of intolerance, that it is a party that does not care about certain people. A party like that will never govern the country. Thank God for that.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed to hear the bitter, partisan diatribe of the member from Winnipeg and to listen to his employing hot bottom, divisive politics, extremist rhetorical tactics to create partisan division on what should be an issue of some unanimity, as he indicated at the outset of his remarks.

He suggested that one could read in the remarks made by members of my party intolerant comments. I have not heard anything of that nature. The motion today is very simple. I will read it into the record. Perhaps the member has not read it:

That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary, in light of public debate around recent court decisions, to state that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all necessary steps to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada.

If the member opposite could identify what he finds offensive in the motion, I would be edified.

He also suggests that there is unanimity on this definition, that no one disagrees with it. He is also contradicting members of his own party who have told us that this is a live issue. The member from Mississauga who just spoke quoted Mr. Corbett from the Coalition for Equal Families who said that it was premature at this time to address this issue. The member from Mississauga pointed out that its “prematurity” implies that it is an issue the foundation will be pushing, the change of the definition of marriage, at some point in the future.

The member from Winnipeg is contradicting the remarks of many of his colleagues today who have said that this is very much an important issue.

I would once more point to the policy adopted while I was there as an observer at the last policy convention of the Liberal Party of Canada, where the party strongly urged the federal government to recognize same sex marriages in the same way that it recognizes opposite marriages.

How can the hon. member from Winnipeg say that this is a red herring and not a real issue and that the opposition is fearmongering when in fact his own party has declared this as party policy?

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to respond to those unfounded charges. There is nothing particularly wrong with the motion as it reads. There is nothing particularly offensive about it. It is about marriage. All of us in the House support marriage. We support the current definition of marriage. That is not a problem.

I referred to the Reform Party as an intolerant bunch and I will not back off from that. It is not so much what its members have said in today's debate. It is what they have left out. It is what is absent. It is what they have not said.

Even though the motion speaks of marriage and the definition of marriage, it is as much about gays and lesbians as anything. I noticed in their speeches a lack of respect, common garden variety respect, for a minority group, a group of people who deserve our respect and our protection, people who deserve equal treatment before the law.

If my friend from Calgary reads the resolution that was passed by the Liberal Party of Canada, he will see that it is not calling for a change in the definition of marriage. It is simply talking about equal treatment when it comes to the provision of benefits. The operative word is benefits.

The courts in many ways have already said that. The courts have simply said that when it comes to benefits we will have to treat them as well as we treat anyone else. That is all the resolution is talking about. It is as simple as that.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, we are finally getting to the bottom of it with this hon. member. He says the courts have already changed the definition. I will read from the resolution:

Be it resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada strongly urge the federal government to recognize same sex marriages in the same way that it recognizes opposite marriages—

How can the hon. member stand in his place and deny that this is the policy of his party and it, therefore, is very much a live matter for public policy debate and for us as parliamentarians?

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is pretty difficult to carry on a debate with an hon. member who deliberately twists facts. He has just said that the courts were demanding a change in the definition of marriage. No such thing exists. It is the same thing with the Liberal Party motion. It does not demand a change in the definition of marriage.

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Madam Speaker, I find it rather unfortunate that we would even have to debate the motion that is before the House today, because it is a straightforward and common sense motion. It is rather bewildering that anyone would oppose it, yet that is the case.

I will begin by reading the motion we are debating in the House today. The Reform Party motion put forward for debate today reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary, in light of public debate around recent court decisions, to state that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all necessary steps to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada.

The motion is very clear, unambiguous and straightforward, and although one would tend to think that support for it would be a given, and that it would be unanimous, that is not the case at all. Before I explain why that is, I would like to commend the Reform member for Calgary Centre who moved this motion.

As the House knows, the hon. member is our family values and family issues critic. He has worked tirelessly on behalf, not only of the Reform Party, but on behalf of all Canadian families to defend the rights and traditional values of families.

For example, earlier this year a court decision in British Columbia ruled that possession of child pornography was legal. It was under the leadership of the hon. member for Calgary Centre that the Reform Party led a motion in the House calling on the government to invoke the notwithstanding clause and override that decision to make it very clear that the Parliament of Canada does not accept that child pornography is something that should be legally possessed. Of course, that motion was defeated by the Liberals, unfortunately.

Also earlier this year, when the issue of tax fairness for families arose in the House, it was under the guidance of the hon. member for Calgary Centre that the Reform Party led a spirited debate urging the government to remove tax unfairness against families with children. That also was unsuccessful.

I would like to commend not only the hon. member for Calgary Centre but his staff for the excellent work they do on behalf of the Reform Party in promoting our family values agenda and on behalf of all Canadian families.

The reason we have to debate a motion which simply seeks to reaffirm that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, is that last summer there was a Liberal Party convention held in Ottawa. A motion was put forward, debated, voted upon and passed which read:

Be it resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada strongly urge the federal government to recognize same sex marriages in the same way that it recognizes opposite marriages—

The official policy of the Liberal Party of Canada is that same sex marriages should be recognized in the exact same manner as opposite sex marriages.

Let us now turn to the NDP. I am looking at 1997 campaign literature with a big heading that states: “Equality for Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals: Alexa McDonough and Canada's NDP”. It goes on to say that the member for Halifax and Canada's NDP will represent the concerns of gays, lesbians and bisexuals consistently. In fact, that is exactly what they are doing in the House today. They are siding with the Liberal government and promoting the view that the definition of marriage and spouse should be changed.

Again I will read directly from the official Liberal Party policy:

—to recognize same sex marriages in the same way that it recognizes opposite marriages—

That is where the NDPs and the Liberals are coming from.

I would like to read directly from the policy book of the Reform Party for the benefit of members of the House to know where the Reform Party stands on these issues. The section on equality states:

The Reform Party affirms the equality of every individual before and under the law and the right to equal protection and benefit of the law.

Under the heading of family it states:

The Reform Party believes a family should be defined as individuals related by blood, marriage or adoption. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman as recognized by the state and this definition will be used in the provision of spousal benefits for any program funded or administered by the federal government. The Reform Party supports the principle that government programs, policies and legislation should serve to strengthen and protect the Canadian family.

The NDP and Liberal policies seek to change the definition of marriage and spouse as opposed to the Reform Party position, which is strongly opposed to that. I delineate the different positions of the parties for the benefit not only of the members of the House, but for all Canadians who may be watching the deliberations today. I urge all Canadians to scrutinize not only what their MPs say in the speeches as we debate this issue, but in how they vote tonight.

I also urge Canadians from coast to coast to keep in mind at the time of the next election, albeit that will probably be about two years from now, that if they vote NDP or Liberal they will be voting for the redefinition of the terms spouse and marriage. They will be voting for the recognition of same sex marriages in the same way that opposite marriages are recognized, as cited in the Liberal policy which was approved at the convention last summer.

Not only is it important to separate the Reform Party position from those of the NDP and the Liberals for the benefit of Canadians who wish to make up their minds on how they are going to vote in the next election on this, but this debate is also very important because of growing public concern over this issue.

Recent headlines in some national newspapers serve to illustrate my point. A headline in the Ottawa Citizen read “Same-sex partners declared spouses: Top court ruling expected to topple hundreds of laws”. A headline in the London Free Press was entitled “Redefining our Partnerships: This week's Supreme Court of Canada landmark ruling could send aftershocks into almost every sector of Canadian life”. A headline in the Montreal Gazette read “Top Court Rewriting Laws of Marriage”. A headline in the National Post read “Ruling Alters Way Marriage Viewed: Family Law Expert—Implications seen for adoptions, pensions, property rights”.

The source of public concern is not only recent newspaper articles and coverage, but also recent court decisions. Most notably, last year there was a decision known as the Rosenberg decision in which the Ontario Court of Appeal changed the definition of the term spouse in the Income Tax Act to include same sex relationships. The Reform Party debated this in the House of Commons and urged the government to appeal that decision, but the government refused. The reason it refused to appeal the decision is because of its official policy which was passed at the convention last summer.

The other recent court decision is that of M. v H., in which Ontario's family law act was declared unconstitutional because it violated the equality rights of homosexuals. Following that the justice minister announced that she would change the definition of spouse in federal laws in an omnibus bill to come down this fall.

The justice minister is telling everyone that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, but justice department bureaucrats continue to put together legislation that will render the definition of marriage useless and meaningless. It is typical Liberal arrogance and deception, saying one thing and doing another.

The purpose of this Reform motion is to pre-empt future supreme court decisions by providing leadership and guidance. The Reform motion instructs the court that the legal definition of marriage shall remain unchanged.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member made reference to the Liberal Party convention. As far as I know, what happens at Liberal Party conventions among the members is not what is government policy.

He seems to be continuously confusing what was a recommendation made by the membership of the party, which illustrates, in my opinion, that in the Liberal Party there can be various opinions expressed by the membership. We have an open party and an open process where members of the Liberal Party can express their opinions on any issue, but that is not government policy. I would like to make sure the hon. member makes the distinction between what was discussed at a convention and what is government policy.

This government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage, as the Minister of Justice said in the House earlier in her speech and in answer to questions by hon. members.

The member talked about the Reform Party convention and the definition of equality. I would like him to elaborate a little more on what is considered equality in terms of the Reform Party's policy.

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Madam Speaker, I do not know what kind of animosity or dissension this is going to cause within the ranks of the Liberal Party. Clearly its membership voted on and approved a policy which stated that the Liberal Party of Canada strongly urge the federal government to recognize same sex marriages in the same way that it recognizes opposite marriages. If cabinet decides to ignore the official party policy, that is not something I would understand.

The way the Reform Party works is that every two years we have an assembly. The membership brings forward policies and principles which are debated and voted upon. The majority will of the party membership determines what those policies are. The policies do not come from the leadership or the MPs down; they come from the grassroots membership upward.

I do not believe the hon. member was listening very closely, so I will restate the official Reform Party policy which was formulated by the grassroots membership, upon which it is incumbent for Reform members of parliament to advocate:

The Reform Party believes a family should be defined as individuals related by blood, marriage or adoption. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman as recognized by the state and this definition will be used in the provision of spousal benefits for any program funded or administered by the federal government. The Reform Party supports the principle that government programs, policies and legislation should serve to strengthen and protect the Canadian family.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is exactly what my Liberal colleague, the member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, was referring to. It seems the members of the Reform Party who spoke earlier must be blind. We are sitting here supporting this issue. Indeed we are saying that we believe in the traditional family of a man and a woman. Never in M. v H. was there any reference to marriage.

I have listened with greatest to the debate throughout the day. Instead of standing and saying that it is great the Liberal members are supporting it and that everybody is behind this, Reformers are exploiting the situation, saying “don't forget when the election comes”. They are going to see tonight. I think they are using the wrong approach. It is fearmongering, which the member referred to earlier.

I am speaking with a loud voice because I am one of the members supporting this excellent initiative, yet here we are playing partisan politics. No wonder they are at 6% and dropping. It is sad to say that they cannot read the pulse of the community.

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would correct the hon. member on one thing. He stated “We believe in the traditional family”. In fact, last summer at the Liberal Party convention here in Ottawa, the Liberal Party adopted an official policy that the federal government should recognize same sex marriages in the same way that it recognizes opposite sex marriages. That is in stark contrast to the position of the Reform Party which believes that marriage should remain the union of a man and a woman.

I thank the hon. member for raising the point about the next election because I strongly encourage all Canadians to keep this in mind at that time.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is indeed one of those debates where emotions run high, feelings run deep and the understandings are also very much in a state of flux.

I commend a number of members from all parties who have said they understand what the meaning of marriage is and that they want to support and affirm that marriage is that of one woman and one man to the exclusion of all others. That is our motion.

I want to do three things. I want to deal with the need for definition. I want to deal with the business of choices. And I want to deal with the matter of leadership.

The issue is rather significant. On the one hand it seems to be absolutely clear that everybody understands what marriage is, yet the judges want a clear definition and direction. All kinds of acrimonious statements have been made as to what might the motivation be, of why the Reform Party would enter this kind of debate. Is it simply for partisan advantage? Is it strictly crass politics and things of that sort? It is nothing of the kind.

When we get into the question of leadership, and that is really what we are into here, we want to recognize that one of the most important things in leadership is to influence others. In particular parliament influences all the people of Canada. The people of Canada will either be affected positively, negatively or they may simply turn off, but influenced they are nevertheless. We influence each other here in the House.

Through the reassertion of the definition we want to influence the judges of the land. We want to make sure that the courts and the decisions they render are indeed consistent with the definition that is being proposed here. We want to make it abundantly clear as well to all members of the House that we agree together on what it is we understand by the term marriage.

Why is it that we need to have these definitions? Marriage is one of those words that needs a definition but it also has all kinds of emotional connotations. It has spiritual connotations. It has the experiential knowledge of each of us.

I admit that I am a married man. As of March of this year my good wife and I have shared our lives together for 43 years. It has been a wonderful time. We have had our ups, we have had our downs, we have had our disagreements and confrontations, but we have lived together in a very happy relationship. I am very proud of it and very thankful for the wife who is mine.

The important thing here is to recognize that we have the need to define exactly what it is. I want to go back in history as to how important definitions really are. It comes to me from the field of science. In science we have a very significant suggestion.

When Mendeleev first put together the periodic table of the elements, he defined very clearly the order of the elements by arranging them in order by atomic number. He discovered there was a systematic recurrence of those elements which had similar characteristics even though their atomic number increased. It was the definition of the periodic table and how it worked with the various elements that became very significant not only in understanding how the elements work and interact with one another, but in order to communicate with others so that they could understand what was being talked about.

We can use another example of the need for definition. I like this one even better. It comes from the field of biology and botany, medicine if you will. The botanist clearly defines each of the parts of a plant and distinguishes one plant from another. It is in this definition where it clearly indicates what a particular plant is or what a particular thing is in distinction to the exclusion of all others.

That is what we are talking about here today. We are not saying what marriage is not; we are simply saying what marriage is. By saying what marriage is means it is absolutely nothing else. That seems to be lost in this debate somewhere. We are focusing very clearly and very definitely on a particular institution which is marriage and which is said very clearly to be the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. That is what this is all about.

Within that definition we need to be absolutely clear as to exactly what we want the courts and judges of this land to interpret when they have before them cases dealing with this matter. That this is a live issue has become abundantly clear with the kind of statements that have come forward from various members on both sides of the House.

We simply want to assure and affirm to the people of Canada and to all of us here assembled that marriage shall continue to mean today and in the future the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

There was an amendment put forward this morning “within the jurisdiction of parliament”. Of course, what else would it be but within the jurisdiction of parliament? That is the most important part. This parliament creates the law. This parliament determines the wishes of the people. It bases the law on the determination of the wishes of the people. Sometimes parliament can be wrong and if the government misinterprets what the people think, then it gets thrown out as happened recently in New Brunswick. We want it to be clear and if all parties agree on what the definition of marriage is, then we can recognize that all parties in future will recognize that this is what it is. We are parliament. We create the law of the land.

What is the choice that we have here today? If that is the clear definition we are working on, the choice before us is whether we will or will not affirm that. That is the clear choice we have today. That is the motivation behind what the Reform Party is doing. We can talk about crass politics and partisan politics, but all of that is totally beside the point. The choice is very simple: do we or do we not affirm marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others?

Why is it so important that parliament make that choice and that decision? It comes from a number of judges. Here is what they have said:

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there is the long-established principle that in a constitutional democracy it is the legislature, as the elected branch of government, which should assume the major responsibility for law reform. Considerations such as these suggest that major revisions of the law are best left to the legislature.

The affirmations also apply to the legislature. The issues here—

—are of such magnitude, consequence, and difficulty in policy terms that they exceed the proper incremental lawmaking powers of the courts. These are the sort of changes which should be left to the legislature.

The interpretation should be left to the legislature is exactly what is meant.

If anything is to be done, the legislature is in a much better position to weigh the competing interests and to arrive at a solution that is principled and minimally intrusive.

Why is it so important that we make a choice? I want to read this because it is very important to recognize why choices are so significant: “I believe every person is created as the steward of his or her own destiny with great power for a specific purpose: to share with others through service a reverence for life in a spirit of love”. No matter what our age, our experience or our position, we can dream a dream that will make a difference. We can have a mission that matters, the choices we make end up controlling the chooser.

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the member for his comments and the delivery of his thoughts on this issue. We are coming to the end of the debate. It was interesting to see the support coming forward from almost all sides of the House.

It has also been interesting to see that some people in the House have tried to turn this into something that it is not. This is strictly, as the motion says, to reaffirm the definition of marriage and to debate it in the House to let Canadians know how parliamentarians feel about this.

I have been fortunate. I was married in 1967 and I am still married to the same person. I am fortunate, but possibly she is not so fortunate, but we have managed to stay together all these years.

The commitment that is made to marriage goes beyond trying to seek out a partner to get as many benefits as one can from the government. It is what we are talking about today. It is the basis for strong families.

I would like the member to comment on the aspect of families and society and how the definition of marriage is the basis for all that and what strong families can mean to a better Canada.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to me the family is the fundamental unit in society. History shows very clearly that it is the single most effective way of transmitting values from one generation to another.

It is also the place where people learn the first elements of communication. It is where they learn the first loving relationships that can be developed. It is where caring can be established and recognition of the need to have compassion for others who are less fortunate, recognition of the importance of sharing what one has with others and recognition that indeed this business of getting along with others is not automatic. When parents have a debate or an argument the children can see that. They can recognize it. They see that ways can be found to resolve that.

There is a tremendous learning experience. The family is absolutely critical for doing that. What does marriage have to do with the family? That is the initial position of the family. That creates the family in the first instance. Are there other definitions of family that can be brought into play? Of course there are. But marriage is absolutely central at the first instance. At the first level it is central. That is my belief.

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go to another part of the member's presentation.

I know how passionately the member feels about being a member of the House of Commons and how much pride he has in being here. I would like him to comment on how feels about the ability to stand in this place today and air this issue on all sides. How important is that to the debate that will take place across the land?

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, you would almost think the hon. member has had a chance to look inside my brain and my heart. I thank the hon. member for that question.

Indeed it is an honour and a privilege to be here. How important is it for what is going to happen in the rest of this land? It is fundamental and it is setting the direction. This place leads the land, but sometimes we wonder in what direction it is taking the land. When we look at the debt situation and various other things we ask ourselves that question.

As Reformers, we are here for one thing and that is to give voice to the people who elected us and to recognize the principles that they put together, not the principles that we, as elected members of the Reform Party, can ignore, which, as the members opposite said, they can do to their convention. I am proud that we cannot do that because I do not want to that.

Our job here is to honestly reflect the wishes of the people who elected us. I am proud to be able to do that.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie—Lincoln, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to share my time tonight with the member for Thornhill.

I am very happy and pleased to be able to rise tonight on this debate. The hon. member for Calgary Centre has put forth a motion for the consideration of the House that the institution of marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others and that parliament will take all necessary steps to preserve this definition of marriage.

Let me clearly state to the House, to the people of Canada and most especially to the people of my riding of Erie—Lincoln that I support the motion without hesitation.

The institution of marriage is clearly and unequivocally the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. This definition has been appropriate and has served us well in the past. It is appropriate and serves us well now. It will continue to be appropriate and serve us well in the future. There are no exceptions, no qualifications and no limitations. The statement is clear and concise. It is the union of two persons of the opposite sex.

Indeed, this position of the federal common law goes back to the 1866 British case of Hyde and Hyde v Woodmansee. This case has been consistently applied in Canada. This long-standing case simply states that no marriage can exist between two persons of the same sex or between multiple wives or husbands. This is the definition that has been acknowledged and accepted by the citizens of the country and by the courts. Yes, Mr. Speaker, by the courts.

Let us consider the Ontario case of Layland and Beaulne where the applicants sought to use section 15 of the charter of rights to bring a change in the commonly accepted definition of marriage. The court soundly and firmly rejected their arguments and reaffirmed the long-standing definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

The government has no intention now or ever of changing the legal and long-standing definition of marriage, or of legislating same sex marriages. Those who would suggest otherwise only serve to foment unwarranted fear and divisiveness.

Canada faces no social problem more important than the strengthening of a family, reducing the number of births outside marriage, cutting the rates of divorce and coming to the aid of children disadvantaged by broken homes. Every measure must be taken to reinforce and revitalize the institution of marriage, real marriage between men and women, mothers and fathers, lasting for life. The hon. member's motion is one step in this process and he has my support.

Same sex marriages do nothing to advance the position of family. Same sex marriages are the antithesis of family. The same sex marriage issue has come before the House previously and I and the House have unequivocally rejected the concept. It is unacceptable and will not and cannot be tolerated.

Hopefully the motion before the House today will clarify the position of the House once and for all. I encourage all members to support it.

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to participate in the debate.

I was talking to a constituent earlier who wanted to know what we were debating today. She was wondering if we were changing the definition of marriage in the statutes of the Government of Canada. I told her that we were not changing the definition of marriage in the statutes of Canada and that the Reform Party, the official opposition, was bringing forward a motion to clarify that we would not do that. She then wanted to know why the motion was before the House if we were not doing that. I told her that there had been some recent court cases which suggested that some of the laws that are presently on the books in Canada are unconstitutional and discriminate against same sex partners on the basis of the receiving of benefits. She then wanted to know what that had to do with marriage. I told her that it had nothing to do with marriage.

As I begin my remarks, I want to reiterate that the decisions of the courts of the land have done nothing to change the definition of marriage. I believe that the results of today's vote will clearly state to the people of Canada that the courts have not changed the definition of marriage nor is it the intention of the government to change the definition of marriage. However, we will address those issues which the courts have rightly pointed out to us, those issues which may, in the courts' views, be treating some citizens of the country in a discriminatory manner. That is the role of the courts.

As part of my remarks, I will focus on the role of the courts in these important discussions on public policy issues. When the courts signal to parliament that the charter of rights is not being protected for all Canadians, elected legislatures, whether it is the federal or provincial government that has passed a law that the court has ruled on, are free to choose how to respond. However, the solution must be constitutional.

We have a constitution and a charter of rights and freedoms in Canada that we, as parliamentarians and all elected officials across the land, have an obligation to live up to. We must live up to the values and principles that are enshrined in that charter of rights and freedoms. I believe I have a responsibility, as the member for Thornhill, to do that not only on behalf of my constituents but on behalf of all constituents in Canada who expect legislators and parliamentarians to protect their freedoms.

While we may not always like the decisions of the courts, we must take heed when they say we are not protecting the rights of all individuals, that we are discriminating against some. We must update our laws to bring them into compliance with our constitutional responsibility.

In the government's view, the courts have demonstrated an appreciation for their role in a democratic society. I believe, and the government believes, that courts must continue to be independent and free to make difficult decisions in accordance with the principles set down in our charter of rights and freedoms. That is the role that we Canadians have given to our courts.

While there is much room for debate on how exactly that role should be carried out, in my view it serves no constructive purpose to attack the courts for what Canadians have asked them to do.

On the contrary, some of the comments that we have heard in the House and elsewhere have suggested that the courts have no business making decisions that declare unconstitutional laws that have been passed in parliament. In doing so, some would suggest they are usurping the public interest and the public policy functions of parliament.

This term is often described as judicial activism. Critics of judicial activism, in my view, are deliberately creating an impression that the courts are usurping to themselves a role that is not contemplated in our democratic constitutional structure, an impression which causes people to question the legitimacy of the role of the courts in the development of law.

I think that has a negative impact on the pride we have in our institutions and on the important role that we play. There is clearly a difference between the role of parliament and the role of the courts. We need both of those institutions to hold the respect of the public if we are to succeed in the kind of public policy making that is in the interests of Canadians.

The impression that is being left as to the inappropriateness of the courts having this role is not only misleading, but it raises the potential for serious harm to the credibility of an important institution, the Canadian court, and the public perception of our whole justice system.

I give this cautionary note not only to the people who are in this House today listening to this debate but also those who are watching. When concerns are expressed about the extent to which the courts are now prepared to use the power of judicial review under the charter, it is helpful to bear in mind not only that the power of judicial review has always existed under Canada's constitution but also, quite apart from the power of judicial review, Canada's courts have always had a significant role to play in relation to the law making function of government, particularly through the development of Canadian common law.

It is the courts in their interpretation that have given us the body of court cases and common law that is the foundation of our judicial system. I would say to the House that if we tear that down, we tear down not only a fundamental institution in our society but we tear down the freedom and the right of Canadians to expect fairness in the judicial system.

There is no question that the courts have a more high profile role since we have the charter, a charter, I might say, that was brought to us by our now prime minister. I know it is something he is particularly proud of after 36 years in this wonderful House. His pride in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is something that I think all Canadians can share. It is their charter of rights and freedoms, and it is their supreme court that makes the interpretations of that charter that guards the rights and freedoms of all Canadians.

I think that is one of the reasons that the United Nations, for the sixth year in a row, has declared Canada the number one country in the world. There are many things for us to be proud of, but the important role of our judiciary in safeguarding our rights and freedoms, and sometimes pushing parliamentarians and legislators to do the right thing, is a very important function.

The present debate about the role of the courts is not surprising because of how young our charter is. When we look around the world we see that wherever there is a constitution it is constantly being defined and refined according to community values and standards in the courts in the free world.

The truth of the matter is that the Supreme Court of Canada has shown itself to be very sensitive to the concerns about judicial review, but that critics of judicial activism over the years have done a great disservice to our court. We are not only talking about a judiciary that holds legislation unconstitutional with great abandon. They do not do that. They are a very conservative court. If we look at the record of their judgments, they have acted appropriately in the interest of Canadians.

We should keep in mind the observations of Peter Hogg, one of Canada's pre-eminent constitutional scholars, who said:

Judicial review is not a veto over the politics of a nations, but rather, the beginning of a dialogue as to how best to reconcile the individualistic values of the charter with the accomplishments of social policies for the benefit of the community as a whole.

I hope today's debate will not confuse anyone. I hope today's debate will not send out a message to anyone that is different from the facts.

The fact is that the decisions of the court have been consistent with protecting the rights and privileges of every Canadian. The decisions of the courts have said to the governments that they cannot and must not discriminate against individuals. Those decisions have done nothing to change the definition of marriage in the country and it is not the policy of the Liberal government to change the definition of marriage. What makes the debate today very important is that it gives us a chance to state that clearly.

As I wind up the debate, I say to the House that it has been a privilege to have the opportunity to clarify and state on behalf of the people of Thornhill that I believe that the courts play an important role in protecting our rights and freedoms in Canada.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Thornhill once again, as some of her colleagues have done, expresses curiosity at why we should be discussing this motion here today, as though no one in the country, as the attorney general suggested earlier, is even discussing the question of the redefinition of marriage. We have plainly had it proposed right here in the House today by members of this place.

The hon. member went on to say at the end of her remarks that it was not the policy of the Government of Canada to change the legal definition of marriage, but eight or nine minutes of her ten minute talk was a lecture on the importance of judicial review.

No member of the opposition or nobody who understands the constitution would disagree with the necessity of judicial review, that is to say, the appropriate interpretation of statutes in light of our charter and constitutional framework. Objections are raised by us and others when the courts go beyond interpretation to legislate from the bench without an appropriate authority in the charter.

I see nowhere in the charter a basis for changing the legal definition of marriage. Yet we have recently seen a change in the legal definition of spouse, so this is a reasonable question. The hon. member said that the government does not have a policy on this. Her party does. I was at the Liberal Party convention last summer where a policy was passed that said:

Be it resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada strongly urge the federal government to recognize same sex marriages in the same way that it recognizes opposite marriages—

I simply ask the hon. member for Thornhill how this question is not relevant. How is it not a question of public debate when her own party introduced it as a matter of public debate and urged her government to change this policy?

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to reiterate once again that the facts before us today are very clear. We have not had a court decision which changes the definition of marriage. It is not the stated policy of the government to change the definition of marriage. It is only the Reform Party, in its own mind, that is suggesting that any of those things are occurring.

That is why Reformers brought forward the motion today. That is why it has been referred to as a red herring. That is why it is frankly confusing Canadians. I say that again to the member opposite who clearly does not want to hear the facts because they do not fit with his agenda.

I have served in opposition. It is clear what Reformers are doing. This is opposition for opposition sake. With all the important things on the public policy agenda, these folks today come in with a motion clearly designed to confuse Canadians.

The courts have not changed the definition of marriage. The government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage. What we are intent on doing is ensuring that Canadians are not discriminated against.

When the court points that out to us, we are prepared to update our laws to ensure that all Canadians live in a society free from discrimination wherever possible.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member across the way keeps saying that the courts have not changed the definition of marriage. The Liberal approach seems to be to wait until the courts change it and then draft some legislation around it. In that way the people are shut out of the process. The courts have changed the definition of spouse and the government is now intending to change the legislation around that.

Why can we not take a proactive approach, as we are doing today, to pre-empt a court ruling? The government would hide behind the robes of supreme court judges to put forward legislation along the lines of a redefined definition of marriage. That is what this is about today.

If tomorrow the courts were to rule that the opposite sex definition of marriage is unconstitutional, what would the hon. member across the way do about that?

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I heard the member opposite say that he would like to change the definition of marriage. The government does not want to do that. The Liberal Party, as reflected in its policies in the House and during the previous election campaign, does not want to do that.

We do not expect it is an issue that will be before the House. I am quite surprised that the member would say that he wants to move ahead with a debate and discussion that would change the definition of marriage. We do not believe Canadians want that at this time, and I am surprised that he would suggest it.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Calgary Southeast.

It has been quite fascinating to sit in the House and watch this debate. Normally we would think an opposition motion supported by the government would be cause for celebration. Normally I would expect to say to my colleagues across the way that we are on the same wavelength.

I have listened to those who have tried to impugn the motive of the motion. I do not quite understand how anyone can look into the heart of someone making a motion and tell what the motives are. I wish the motion could stand as it is, because it is an affirmation of marriage as most Canadians understand it.

I will explain again to my colleagues why I think the motion is worth while and necessary. It is because there are signs that marriage is under some stress in terms of definition. I will list for my colleagues some of the signs I see. I come to this as a clinician who counselled about marriage for 25 years of my life. I have watched marriage decrease in terms of its importance in Canada as well as some definitional changes.

Do we need clarification? I say we do. Do we need reaffirmation of the definition of marriage? I say we do. One of the things I have watched is a redefinition of spouse. It happened so recently that I am surprised my colleagues across the way would not reflect upon it. There has been a recent redefinition of spouse in the courts of Canada. That is an indication that there is a very definite need to take a specific stand.

What do my own constituents say about it? I live in southwest Alberta and I took the opportunity to poll my constituents in relation to what they think about marriage. They have some concerns and are worried. They are very firm on the issue of no redefinition of marriage. They say that marriage must be as they have traditionally understood it.

Are the courts gradually changing the institution of marriage and the long term future of marriage? My answer is a resounding yes. Parliament should be, 100%, the last bastion for marriage when it comes to definition. There should be no social or judicial activism when it relates to marriage.

Let us look outside Canada for evidence on whether marriage is being redefined elsewhere. There was a recent attempt to redefine marriage in the states of Alaska and Hawaii. I had one of my colleagues make light of it and jokingly say that in one spot their brains were frozen. It was not light at all.

In those areas they tried to redefine marriage in a very specific legislative way. They handled it a different way from judicial activism. Both states went to the public with referendums at election time. It was fascinating to see what happened in both Alaska and Hawaii as they tried to openly and vigorously redefine marriage. In both cases the public rejected the redefinition of marriage. That tells me where the public is, along with my constituents who say that a redefinition of marriage is not on. The redefinition was renounced.

It concerns me that many of my colleagues seem to ignore what the social activists say. We have heard two or three times in the House that the redefinition of marriage according to social activists is premature. That tells me whether or not the issue is on the table.

I had an opportunity in the last parliament to debate Bill C-33 respecting sexual orientation and non-discrimination. I stated in the House publicly that I felt it was part of an ongoing campaign to redefine marriage.

I also stated that there were four steps. The first step was what Bill C-33 was trying to do. The second step was a redefinition of spouse. The third step was adoption. The fourth step would be a redefinition of marriage. I was roundly condemned by my colleagues across the way for saying that, but not five minutes after that bill passed a social activist in the House stood outside in the lobby and said that was exactly what was going on, that was exactly the intent.

To my Liberal colleagues who say there is nothing in the Liberal Party of Canada government-wise, I cannot imagine how a resolution passed at its last convention can be so quickly ignored. It says:

—the Liberal Party of Canada strongly urged the federal government to recognize same sex marriages in the same way that it recognizes opposite marriages in its distribution of benefits.

This was not done in isolation. This was not done in a vacuum. This was done actively.

I am delighted that my Liberal colleagues will support the motion. The statement we are making today is not so much for those of us in the House as it is profoundly important to the courts. The vote on the importance of the definition of marriage is probably the most important vote we will take in the House during my time here. I am delighted that my colleagues across the way will be supporting it. For those who cannot, I will be interested in listening to their rationale.

It would normally be a cause of celebration for me to say that we are on the same wavelength, that we are on the same path. I have difficulty understanding the issue of trying to find bad motives because I think the motives are very plain: affirmation of the strongest institution in Canada, affirmation of marriage.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am informed there are so many people on this side of the House who wish to speak that I will not have an opportunity to deliver a full speech. However, I will take the opportunity to ask a question or make a comment in respect of the very important debate we are having today.

I unequivocally congratulate the hon. member for bringing forward the motion. I agree with everything the previous speaker just said. It is absolutely critical that the House speak to this issue.

I have a couple of questions for the hon. member as I have heard a few incorrect statements made in the House. Would the hon. member agree there is no statute with respect to marriage that deals with the capacity to marry?

Would he agree that the only statute the Parliament of Canada has is chapter M-2 of the Revised Statutes of Canada which contains three sections and is called the Marriage Act? None of those three sections deal with the fundamental issue that a marriage can only be between a male and a female and only of a single male and a single female.

Would he agree with me that no statute in fact deals with this, that it is judge-made law, and that the problem is that if it is judge-made law judges can change it?

I have a second question about whether he would agree, for those who have been bandying about supreme court cases and in particular the case of M. v H., that the majority in this case said the following:

We emphasize that the definition of “spouse” found in s. 1(1) of the FLA, and which applies to other parts of the FLA, includes only married persons and is not at issue in this appeal.

In other words, M. v H does not deal with the issue of marriage and should not be used to cloud this debate. Would the hon. member agree with these two statements?

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am not a solicitor or a lawyer so when it comes to the nuances of law I have some difficulty.

I do know that the two statements of the hon. gentleman across the way are true. They are accurate statements. From my own perspective I simply want to reaffirm the importance of marriage as an institution in Canada.

I am delighted to hear that the member opposite will be voting for the motion as will many of his colleagues across the way.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member made reference to debate that occurred in the House on Bill C-33. I would like to quote one of his members in terms of what he said during a debate we had which was to expand human rights protection to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The member for Yorkton—Melville said:

I believe this legislation will lead to redefinition of the family, marriage and spouse in Canadian law which in turn will permit gay marriages, spousal benefits to gay couples, gay adoption, restriction of religious freedom and expression, and open the door for sex perverts and pedophiles to seek Charter protection by claiming that their criminal sexual preferences are just another sexual orientation.

That was said on May 2, 1996. Despite the member's gloom and doom scenario, no Liberal policy has left the door wide open for “sex perverts and pedophiles” as the hon. member predicted in his fearmongering.

Since the hon. member made reference to Bill C-33, does he agree with the comments made by the other member of his party?